[issue4559] Whats new recommendation error

Lennart Regebro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: Fair enough, but I still think we can come up with a better example that requires more contortions than "print", which doesn't. I think a good example of contortions is binary file data, which has two different types in 2.6 and 3.0. Also ma

[issue4559] Whats new recommendation error

Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: But that's all part of the "make it easy to port" strategy. I stick to my claim that trying to write code that runs unchanged in 3.0 is a non-goal of Python 2.6, and I do not want to suggest that this is a good idea in the official document

[issue4559] Whats new recommendation error

Lennart Regebro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: Well, that *is* the intention of a from __future__ import, isn't it? That doesn't mean that's the intention of 2.6 as a whole, just that statement. ___ Python tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

[issue4559] Whats new recommendation error

Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: Then what did you mean by "just to make it possible to write code that runs under both" ? ___ Python tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___

[issue4559] Whats new recommendation error

Lennart Regebro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: I've never said that is the goal. You are misrepresenting or misinterpreting my standpoint. ___ Python tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___

[issue4559] Whats new recommendation error

Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: You're misrepresenting or misunderstanding the goal of 2.6. Its goal isn't to make it easy to write code that runs under both. Its stated goal is to make it easy to write code that can easily be *ported* to 3.0. That's a very different st

[issue4559] Whats new recommendation error

Lennart Regebro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: A future import is not much of a contortion, and metaclasses is not exactly an everyday occurrence, after 9 years of python I have yet to write a metaclass... Of course I don't like that it specifically mentiones 2.6, while 2.6 has lot's of

[issue4559] Whats new recommendation error

Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: It is true for 2.6 unless you use various from __future__ imports, which I consider a form of contortion. Even with 2.6 I don't see how you can specify a metaclass without doing something weird like foo = MyMetaclass('foo', bases_tuple,

[issue4559] Whats new recommendation error

Raymond Hettinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: Guido, the OP wants you to change your long-standing guidance on the relationship between 2.6 and 3.0. Care to pronounce? -- assignee: georg.brandl -> gvanrossum nosy: +gvanrossum ___ Python tr

[issue4559] Whats new recommendation error

Lennart Regebro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: That is not true, and statement as it stands now is still factually incorrect. ___ Python tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___

[issue4559] Whats new recommendation error

Raymond Hettinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: No thanks. We need to STRONGLY discourage such efforts. The official recommended approach is to run 2.6 with a -3 option to identify code that cannot be automatically converted and then after making the appropriate updates to use the 2-to

[issue4559] Whats new recommendation error

New submission from Lennart Regebro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: The whatsnew/3.0.rst document claims "It is not recommended to try to write source code that runs unchanged under both Python 2.6 and 3.0; you’d have to use a very contorted coding style, e.g. avoiding print statements, metaclasses, and mu