On Friday, September 8, 2017 at 5:19:36 PM UTC+1, Steve D'Aprano wrote: > On Sat, 9 Sep 2017 12:41 am, Chris Angelico wrote: > > >> I ran 2to3 on some code that worked under 2.6.6. and 3.6.2. 2to3 broke it > >> for both versions and it was a fairly trivial script. > > > > Show the code that it broke? I've never seen this, unless it's > > something like "now you need to install third-party package X in > > Python 3". The 2to3 transformations are fine for everything in the > > stdlib. > > Chris, I don't think it is controversial that 2to3 occasionally breaks code, > or > fails to translate every feature. Even today, there are still the occasional > bug report or feature request for 2to3. > > Even human beings can't always translate 2 to 3 flawlessly, and there are some > code bases that actually are tricky to migrate to 3. We shouldn't expect an > automated tool to handle *all* code bases perfectly without human review. >
I asked earlier this year why there were still so many 2to3 bug reports outstanding. Regrettably the vast majority are edge cases for which there is no simple solution that will keep everybody happy, so I doubt that they will ever get fixed. I do not believe that to be too important as some of the reports are over six years old, so I suspect that workarounds have been found with the aid of the MkI eyeball :-) Kindest regards. Mark Lawrence. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
