Roland Puntaier wrote:
> to embed both python 2.x and python 3.x in vim is possible (See PSS)
>
> But I am not really convinced that this is necessary.
> With the current implementation one already has the possibility to
> either compile the code with python 2.x or with python 3.x.
>
> One can do the forking in the system by making two vim executables
> and name one differently.
> There is no need to duplicate the other vim files.
Having two Vim executables is a bad idea. Next you have two versions of
Perl, small and big features, etc. You end up with many different Vim
executables. It's better to try and have one executable.
> In scripts one can do something like this (see also PSSS)
> (from pythoncomplete.vim attached in this mail):
>
> py << PYTHONEOF
> import sys
> vim.command("silent let g:python_hexversion = %i" % sys.hexversion)
> PYTHONEOF
>
> function! s:DefPython()
> if g:python_hexversion < 0x03000000
> python << PYTHONEOF
> ...
> PYTHONEOF
> else
> python << PYTHONEOF
> ...
> PYTHONEOF
> endif
> endfunction
>
> And normally it is not a big deal to convert the python code to python3.
> The necessity to do something might speed up the convertion of existing
> scripts.
Don't underestimate how much effort it is to do the conversion for
someone who doesn't know Python. Very often scripts are abandoned by
the original author and it's up to the user to make it work again.
It's a lot simpler if old scripts still work.
> The executable versions would have python2.x embedded until the time has
> come to change that, too.
> If somebody uses python with vim he probably will also be able to compile
> vim by himself.
Python is often used as part of extensions by people who don't know
anything about Python.
> To include both in the sources allows those to do so more easily,
> because vim sources change and the python3 patch might not be appliable
> any more in the future.
Unfortunately the embedding of Python in Vim has had its incompatibility
problems. But with a series of #ifdefs one can make it work.
> Up to now I did't have any problem with the python3 patch. It should be OK
> to include in the trunk.
> The only difference I know about: vim.current.buffer.mark(b'<') intead of
> vim.current.buffer.mark('<').
[...]
> pythoncomplete.vim is part of the vim sources, but not yet adapted to
> python 3 in the above patch.
Hmm, so we need to maintain two versions of pythoncomplete.vim?
At least for the Python part of it.
> PSS
> to embed both python 2.x and python 3.x in vim:
>
> - the if_python3.c compilation would need to be provided with include and
> library paths different
> from those for the if_python.c compilation.
> Currently all files are compiled with
>
> CCC = $(CC) -c -I$(srcdir) $(ALL_CFLAGS)
>
> The current python3 integration in the build system is already parallel
> (PYTHON_xxx and PYTHON3_xxx), just not up to $(CCC) yet.
I don't understand this.
> - the functions used thoughout the vim sources when FEAT_PYTHON
> would need to get different names and could be included like this
>
> #ifndef FEAT_PYTHON
> # define ex_python ex_script_ni
> # define ex_pyfile ex_ni
> #endif
> #ifndef FEAT_PYTHON3
> # define ex_python3 ex_script_ni
> # define ex_pyfile3 ex_ni
> #endif
>
> EX(CMD_python, "python", ex_python,
> RANGE|EXTRA|NEEDARG|CMDWIN),
> EX(CMD_python, "pyTHON", ex_python3,
> RANGE|EXTRA|NEEDARG|CMDWIN),
> EX(CMD_pyfile, "pyfile", ex_pyfile,
> RANGE|FILE1|NEEDARG|CMDWIN),
> EX(CMD_py3file, "pyFILE", ex_pyfile3,
> RANGE|FILE1|NEEDARG|CMDWIN),
>
> If one preferred a name like py3 there would need to be
> an adaptation in find_command() and possibly set_one_cmd_context(),
> because only chars up to a number are considered.
> But I think the above names should be OK.
It's a lot easier if the Python script itself specifies what version of
Python it is for. E.g., by something in the first line. Then one can
use the ":python" command and get an error if the Python version doesn't
match. If it would be possible to build Vim with both Python 2.x and
3.x then it would always work.
> PSSS
> [email protected] schrieb am 17.07.2009 21:57:23:
> >
> > Best would be if the script itself specifies it runs with Python 3.
> > That's much easier than a setting or a different command.
> >
> > It's not possible for a single Python command though.
>
> I'm not sure what you meant here. I interpret it as this:
> The vim script calls the python script via
>
> py << EOF
> ...
> EOF
>
> that script is parsed by python and since python 3 has different syntax
> one cannot do
>
> if sys.hexversion < 0x03000000:
> ... (syntax error for python 2.x code if python 3)
> else:
> ... (syntax error for python 3.x code if python 2)
>
> But the solution is mentioned above.
The ":python" command will only work for either Python 2.x or 3.x, since
one can't tell which version the Python commands were written for.
So a ":python3" command would be required.
The ":pyfile" is different, since that loads a separate file, where the
Python version can be specified.
I wish Python 3 would have been written in a way that Python 2.x
commands can still be executed. That would have avoided lots and lots
of problems at a small price.
--
If Microsoft would build a car...
... You'd have to press the "Start" button to turn the engine off.
/// Bram Moolenaar -- [email protected] -- http://www.Moolenaar.net \\\
/// sponsor Vim, vote for features -- http://www.Vim.org/sponsor/ \\\
\\\ download, build and distribute -- http://www.A-A-P.org ///
\\\ help me help AIDS victims -- http://ICCF-Holland.org ///
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
