Re: [Python-Dev] Core projects: 3to2
Terry Reedy wrote:
> Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>> Terry Reedy 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
Re: [Python-Dev] Core projects: 3to2
Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Terry Reedy 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.
from __future__ import print_function
I was not aware of that. Would be ok for my current project which has
print isolated in a few modules, at least so far.
except e as a to 2.x version
Works in 2.6.
Did not know that. Perhaps a 3 to 2.6+ guide would help.
class C() to class C(object)
Part of the reason to move to 3.0 is to not have to do that.
__metaclass__ = type
Now I'm not saying that all 3.0 code will work in 2.6 with such simple
precautions, far from it!
tjr
___
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
Re: [Python-Dev] Core projects: 3to2
2009/3/18 Antoine Pitrou : > >> class C() to class C(object) > > __metaclass__ = type Or even better: just inherit from object in 3.0 and 2.x. :) -- Regards, Benjamin ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] Core projects: 3to2
Terry Reedy 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:
from __future__ import print_function
> except e as a to 2.x version
Works in 2.6.
> class C() to class C(object)
__metaclass__ = type
Now I'm not saying that all 3.0 code will work in 2.6 with such simple
precautions, far from it!
Regards
Antoine.
___
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
Re: [Python-Dev] Core projects: 3to2
Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Terry Reedy udel.edu> writes:
Or the much requested 3to2 using the same tools.
I didn't know there was such a request. I thought it was only a PyPy April fool.
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
(in preference to explicit 'if version') and have .__bool__ be
either replaced or aliased as .__nonzero__ for a 2.x version. Answer:
No. Use 3to2 if/when available.
This has been the answer in other threads as well.
I believe my own 3.0 code will mainly also need
print() to print statement
except e as a to 2.x version
class C() to class C(object)
An easily doable project would be both used and appreciated.
tjr
___
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
