On 3/20/07, Collin Winter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 3/20/07, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I haven't taken any action, and it looks like __cmp__ isn't being > > called. I'd rather not add it back; if you want it back, could you at > > least write up a brief PEP? A patch would also help; I recall that it > > was quite a relief being able to cut it out, so I expect that patching > > it back in would be quite cumbersome. > > I'm not wild about the idea of reintroducing it. I'd at least like > some kind of transition strategy that 2to3 can help with (if not > implement entirely). Perhaps something like, "if a class defines a > __cmp__ method but not __lt__, __gt__, __ge__, etc, 2to3 will insert > those methods, implemented by wrapping calls to cmp() as appropriate".
Or we could just have 2.6 warn about the presence (or use) of __cmp__ -- users can write equivalent code using __lt__ etc. themselves and probably do a better job. Inserting six new methods sounds like a bit of a heavy operation for 2to3. The goal of 2to3 is not to convert all possible programs; it is to make it reasonable to write code that runs warning-free under 2.6 and and can be converted without manual massaging to correct, equivalent 3.0 code. -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
