Prev: Anyone using GPG or PGP encryption/signatures in your Pythonapps?
Next: loading configuration files that are themselves python
From: D'Arcy J.M. Cain on 3 Jul 2010 00:10
On 2 Jul 2010 15:00:17 -0700
aahz(a)pythoncraft.com (Aahz) wrote:
> > 5. Get at least two major hosting services to put up Python 3.
>
> webfaction.com has python3.1

So does http://www.Vex.Net/ so there's your two.

--
D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy(a)druid.net> | Democracy is three wolves
http://www.druid.net/darcy/ | and a sheep voting on
+1 416 425 1212 (DoD#0082) (eNTP) | what's for dinner.
From: Steven D'Aprano on 5 Jul 2010 02:31
On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 17:34:04 -0700, sturlamolden wrote:

> Using Python 2.x for new
> projects is not advisable (at least many will think so), and using 3.x
> is not possible. What to do? It's not a helpful situation for Python.

That's pure FUD.

Python 2.7 will be supported longer than the normal support period for
versions 2.6, 2.5, 2.4, ... so if you have a new project that requires
libraries that aren't available for 3.1, then go right ahead and use 2.7.
By the time 2.7 is no longer supported (probably around the time 3.4
comes out?), the library situation will be fixed.

Those 3.1 features that can be backported to 2.x have been, specifically
to reduce the pain in porting 2.7-based applications to 3.x. Feature-
wise, 2.7 is designed to ease the transition from the 2.x series to the
3.x series. Claiming that it's not advisable to use 2.7 is simply
nonsense.



--
Steven
From: D'Arcy J.M. Cain on 5 Jul 2010 16:30
On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 14:42:13 -0400
Terry Reedy <tjreedy(a)udel.edu> wrote:
> Good start. Now what is blocking those four?
> Lack of developer interest/time/ability?
> or something else that they need?

How about a basic how-to document? I maintain PyGreSQL and would like
to move it to 3.x right now but I don't even know what the issues are.
I can see on the site the 2.x documents and the 3.x documents for
extending with C modules and I can read both from end to end but that
hits the time issue above. If there was a relatively simple document
that showed what needed to be changed in the C code we could get
started on the transition sooner.

Or is there no change at the C level? That would make things easy.

--
D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy(a)druid.net> | Democracy is three wolves
http://www.druid.net/darcy/ | and a sheep voting on
+1 416 425 1212 (DoD#0082) (eNTP) | what's for dinner.
From: Steven D'Aprano on 8 Jul 2010 03:44
On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 14:10:57 -0700, Brendan Abel wrote:

> The entire fact that 3.x was *designed* to be incompatible should tell
> you that supporting 2.x and 3.x with a single code base is a bad idea,
> except for the very smallest of projects.

I don't see that follows at all. If the incompatibilities are designed to
be mechanically translatable (e.g. "x.keys()" -> "list(x.keys())" then
you can start with a single code-base and run the translator.

If only there were some sort of Python program that could be used to
translate code from 2 to 3...

*wink*



--
Steven
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Anyone using GPG or PGP encryption/signatures in your Pythonapps?
Next: loading configuration files that are themselves python