On 5/17/2011 12:07 PM, lkcl wrote:
On May 4, 7:37 pm, Terry Reedy<tjre...@udel.edu> wrote:
On 5/4/2011 10:06 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
pyjamasis a suite of projects, including a python-to-javascript
compiler
As you well know, there is no such thing as 'python' when it comes to
compiling actual code. So please specify both in announcements here and
on the project homepagehttp://sourceforge.net/projects/pyjamas/
which versions are supported.
> [no response]
I would still like to know. Do you fully support 2.7? It has many of the
same changes that are in 3.1 and even 3.2 so I can imagine it would be
difficult.
If you do not yet support 3.x, I request and recommend that you do so,
with the situation as it is, there is not a snowball in hell's chance
that's going to happen. allow me to explain.
Thank you for the explanation. You are right that I probably
underestimated the work, though you have or will do some of what is
needed to fully support 2.7.
...
otherwise please - really: just saying "give me support for python
3.x or else" is ...
And I did not say that. I first learned Python with 1.3 and could again
write 2.x code if motivated.
...
leaving _that_ aside, there happens to be absolutely no really good
compelling reason to support python 3.x in the first place.
Depend on who *you* want to target as users. *Your* choice, of course.
"python 3 is the future of python" gimme a break!!
Let's discuss that in a couple of years.
[so why is archlinux the only linux distribution that's converted
> over to run everything off of python 3.x?]
Because being first is their thing.
--
Terry Jan Reedy
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
