On 10/10/2011 21:21, Giampaolo Rodolà wrote:
Thanks everybody for your feedback.
I created a gcode project here:
http://code.google.com/p/pycompat/
2011/10/8 Antoine Pitrou<solip...@pitrou.net>:
There's also some stuff there that is coded in C, or that will rely on
some functionality of the core interpreter that is not easily
emulated on previous versions. But I suppose you'll find that out by
yourself.
Yep, I'm still not sure what to do about this.
I guess I'll just ignore that stuff in all those cases where rewriting
it in python is too much effort.
Toshio Kuratomi<a.bad...@gmail.com> wrote:
I have a need to support a small amount of code as far back as python-2.3
I don't suppose you're interested in that as well? ;-)
I'm still not sure; 2.3 version is way too old (it doesn't even have
decorators).
It might make sense only in case the lib gets widely used, which I doubt.
Personally, at some point I deliberately dropped support for 2.3 from
all of my code/lib, mainly because I couldn't use decorators. so I
don't have a real need to do this.
Yes, rewriting code from Python 2.7 to support Python 2.3
(pre-decorators) is a real nuisance. In my projects I'm currently
supporting Python 2.4+. I'll probably drop support for Python 2.4 soon
which will allow for the use of the with statement.
2011/10/9 Éric Araujo<mer...@netwok.org>:
The issues I foresee with your lib are more technical: First, it looks
like a big bag of backported modules, classes and functions without
defined criterion for inclusion (“cool new stuff”?).
I'd say the criterion for inclusion is putting in everything which can
be (re)written in python 2.4, such as any, all,
collections.defaultdict and property setters/deleters (2.6).
Pretty much all the stuff written in C would be left out, maybe with
the exception of functools module which is important (for me at
least), in which case I might try to rewrite it in pure Python.
I'm sharing your same doubts though.
Maybe this isn't worth the effort in the first place.
I'll try to write some more code and see whether this is a good
candidate for a "public module".
If not I'll just get back to use it as an internal "private" module.
2011/10/9 Éric Araujo<mer...@netwok.org>:
keep on lumping new things until Python 3.4? 3.8? Won’t that become
unmanageable (boring/huge/hard)?
I don't think it makes sense to go over than 3.2 version.
Folks which are forced to use python 2.4 are already avoing to use 2.6
and 2.7 features, let alone 3.X only features.
Plus, python 3.2 was already the latest 3.X version which still had
something in common with 2.7.
However, if you can include Python 3.2+ features then projects that also
support Python 3 can still use new features without having to worry
about compatibility (it solves the same problem).
All the best,
Michael Foord
--- Giampaolo
http://code.google.com/p/pyftpdlib/
http://code.google.com/p/psutil/
_______________________________________________
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/fuzzyman%40voidspace.org.uk
--
http://www.voidspace.org.uk/
May you do good and not evil
May you find forgiveness for yourself and forgive others
May you share freely, never taking more than you give.
-- the sqlite blessing http://www.sqlite.org/different.html
_______________________________________________
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
