Benjamin Peterson <benja...@python.org> added the comment: 2010/4/24 Barry A. Warsaw <rep...@bugs.python.org>: > > Barry A. Warsaw <ba...@python.org> added the comment: > > Removing __future__ as part of explicit command line execution of 2to3 makes > some sense, but I wonder if 2to3 is used more often automatically (e.g. via > Distribute) where it's at best unhelpful. 2to3 is all about making it easy > to port code from Python 2 to 3, and this particular transformation makes it > (albeit, slightly so) harder.
It's also designed to be easily customizable. > > A different idea would be to add a comment before the future import > indicating its uselessness, but not removing it. OTOH, I would also be happy > with a better way to just disable it in a setup.py (e.g. by passing the -x > flag in somehow). I'm not sure we should get into the habit of telling people that their code is useless. :) I'll just close this as won't fix. ---------- title: 2to3 fix_future.py removes __future__ imports, but should it? -> 2to3 fix_future.py removes __future__ imports, but should it? _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue8505> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
