Arthur Pemberton wrote: > On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 12:45 PM, Basil Mohamed Gohar > <abu_hurayrah@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Fri, 2008-12-05 at 12:40 -0600, Arthur Pemberton wrote: >>> 2008/12/5 Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger@xxxxxxxxx>: >>> >>> Maybe I am oversimplifying. But what about using 2.6+ (<3.0) and >>> ensure that all code is compatible with 3. And still have 3 in >>> parallel for those who want it. So we target 2.6+ , but have 3.0 there >>> to ensure everything would work with it, and for early adopters/devs >>> >>> -- >>> Fedora 9 : sulphur is good for the skin >>> ( www.pembo13.com ) >>> >> It would be very hard to write 2.6 code that is completely compatible >> with 3.0, because 3.0 has changed many fundamental language constructs, >> including even the "print" statement, which in 3.0 is a function (syntax >> change). > > I believe 'print' is a poor example as it is very easy to fix. Are > there other, more problematic ones? > Yes, print is a poor example for the 2.6=>3.0 compatibility test (it is a good example for 2.5=>3.0 compatibility, though, as there's no way to redefine a keyword from within python.) The problem area that I'm most aware of is unicode handling. There have been some major improvements to this that make it more sane. However, there's also been some regressions. Some of those regressions lead to code that looks like it should work but silently fail to do what's expected on *nix in some corner cases. -Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
