Re: Misleading wikipedia article on Python 3?

"Martin v. Löwis" <martin@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
[... snip stuff I don't follow ...]
However, it *is* a design goal to make 2.6 so that transition to
3k becomes simpler. That's not a 3k feature, but a 2.6 one.

Not sure I care about this sort of thing for the purpses of my
question. I just wanted to know: is it easy to make my code so it
runs on 2.6 and 3.0, without funny stuff like a code translator?
Seems wikipedia said "yes" and Guido said "no".


[...]
to be seen. I personally believe that many projects won't need the 2to3
tool, if they are willing to compromise on the notations used in the
source code.

OK, so there's disagreement on this point amongst the Python 3
developers. That's interesting (I don't mean that in a negative way).


[...]
It
seems to me that if I don't understand what the Python 3 developers
expect the practicalities to be, most other interested people won't
either ("interested" in the opposite sense to "disinterested" rather
than to "uninterested").

I think comp.lang.python is then the wrong place to find out; the py3k
list likely reaches more of these developers. OTOH, I don't know whether
they all want to participate in a survey of their expectations...

I was also hoping to get a quick answer rather than a long discussion,
if any Python 3 developers were around to talk to the broader range of
people that read this list. You have given your answers, I wonder if
anybody else will turn up.


Rather than studying people's opinions, why don't you try to port your
own projects to 3k, and report whether you found it practical to use
a single source (assuming you would prefer such a solution for your
own project)?

Because that might well tell me much less than asking a Python 3
developer, and yet take far more time, and fail to inform everybody
else.


John
.

Relevant Pages