Terry Reedy wrote:
> Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>> Terry Reedy <tjreedy <at> udel.edu> writes:
>>> Some of the people who need to support both late 2.x and 3.x would
>>> prefer to write 3.x code and backport. The OP of a current python-list
>>> thread asked whether there was any way to write something like
>>>
>>> @alias('__nonzero__')
>>> def __bool__(self): return True
>>
>> How about simply:
>> __nonzero__ = __bool__
>>
>>> I believe my own 3.0 code will mainly also need
>>> print() to print statement
>>
>> If this is only about supporting "late 2.x" (i.e., 2.6 and upwards), you
>> can
>> already write:
>
> People often do not specify. I suspect some are thinking back to 2.5,
> but that will change in the future.
i am the author of the original post quoted above. i wrote a parser
library (lepl) using 3.0. backporting to 2.6 was fairly easy, but it
still does not run with 2.5.
if i remember correctly it appeared that i was going to need separate
source files because of significant differences in syntax (print,
exceptions) as well as missing functionality (metaclasses, string
formatting).
andrew
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
