[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Python 3 (was: 2.20 where are we?)
|
From: |
Dan Eble |
|
Subject: |
Re: Python 3 (was: 2.20 where are we?) |
|
Date: |
Mon, 30 Sep 2019 13:47:37 -0400 |
On Sep 27, 2019, at 16:34, Matthew Peveler <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> I'll have another email later on with patches for having this branch run
> under both python2.7 & 3 as the necessary backport efforts were not really
> all that extravagant with just a handful of shims around the changes you
> noted in long vs int, unicode vs str, StringIO vs io, iter.next vs
> iter.__next__, reload, xrange vs range.
Are these complications desirable? A clean and obvious implementation
requiring Python 3 will be easier to maintain.
—
Dan
- Re: Python 3, (continued)
Re: Python 3, David Kastrup, 2019/09/21
Re: Python 3 (was: 2.20 where are we?), Matthew Peveler, 2019/09/23
- Re: Python 3 (was: 2.20 where are we?), Matthew Peveler, 2019/09/23
- Re: Python 3 (was: 2.20 where are we?), Jonas Hahnfeld, 2019/09/26
- Re: Python 3 (was: 2.20 where are we?), Matthew Peveler, 2019/09/27
- Re: Python 3 (was: 2.20 where are we?),
Dan Eble <=
- Re: Python 3, David Kastrup, 2019/09/30
- Re: Python 3, Dan Eble, 2019/09/30
- Re: Python 3, Matthew Peveler, 2019/09/30
- Re: Python 3, Werner LEMBERG, 2019/09/30
- Re: Python 3, Dan Eble, 2019/09/30
- Re: Python 3, Matthew Peveler, 2019/09/30
- Re: Python 3, Dan Eble, 2019/09/30
Re: Python 3 (was: 2.20 where are we?), Joram, 2019/09/30
Re: Python 3 (was: 2.20 where are we?), Matthew Peveler, 2019/09/30
Re: 2.20 where are we?, David Kastrup, 2019/09/21