On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 4:07 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> Cool! Is the next plan to make lib2to3 part of the stdlib in 2.6 and 3.0? > >> Next, I want to have distutils (build_py) to invoke 2to3 as a > >> command-line tool. I think this will already cover most uses > >> that people may have. > > > > Are you serious? > > Wrt. invoking it from distutils: Why not?
Because it's far from perfect. I'd expect the success rate of running 2to3 over a 2.x package to be close to zero. I think this is one case where it's better to let the developer run 2to3 and tweak the app until it actually works. > Wrt. this covering all uses: Surely the ones that people > would use the library for, no? I not understand. :-( > >> Moving lib2to3 into the standard library would mean that the > >> trunk and 3k copies diverge, right? > > > > Not necessarily. If you check it into 2.6 first, then merge and apply > > it to its merged self, afterwards most changes would merge into 3.0 > > just fine. > > Ok, I'll do that. > > We should decide which of the copies remains the master, and > which copies use merge-tracking. I would propose the sandbox > copy remains the one where we check in stuff, so that 2to3 > can still get distributed as a stand-alone application. That makes sense. > > I'd like to clean it up and make it a toplevel package. But I may not > > have the time, so until I do (or someone else does) it's best to keep > > it inside lib2to3. > > Ok, I'll move it into lib2to3 then also. Great! -- --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
