"John Machin" <sjmac...@lexicon.net> wrote:
On Feb 23, 7:47 pm, "Frank Millman" <fr...@chagford.com> wrote:
[snip lots of valuable info]
The issue is not that 2to3 should handle this correctly, but that it
should
give a more informative error message to the unsuspecting user.
Your Python 2.x code should be TESTED before you poke 2to3 at it. In
this case just trying to run or import the offending code file would
have given an informative syntax error (you have declared the .py file
to be encoded in UTF-8 but it's not).
Thank you, John - this is the main lesson.
The file that caused the error has a .py extension, and looks like a python
file, but it just contains documentation. It has never been executed or
imported.
As you say, if I had tried to run it under Python 2 it would have failed
straight away. In these circumstances, it is unreasonable to expect 2to3 to
know what to do with it, so it is definitely not a bug.
BTW I have always waited for 'final releases' before upgrading in the
past,
but this makes me realise the importance of checking out the beta
versions -
I will do so in future.
I'm willing to bet that the same would happen with Python 3.1, if a
3.1 to 3.2 upgrade is what you are talking about
This is my first look at Python 3, so I am talking about moving from 2.6 to
3.2. In this case, it turns out that it was not a bug, but still, in future
I will run some tests when betas are released, just in case I come up with
something.
Thanks for your response - it was very useful.
Frank
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
