On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 05:49:43PM +0100, Greg Stein wrote:
> I say it complicated things. More methods instead of fewer. Lots of
> additional comparisons instead of just using cmp(). Additional logic.
> And "Python 3.0 compatibility" for scripts intended for 2.4 doesn't
> add any benefit.
Won't we eventually have to depend on Python 3.x, when Python 2.x is
being phased out in a few years or whenever they're planning to do it?
At some point, we'll have to do what Arfrever is doing anyway.
If we can do some of the necessary conversion work now, and have
someone how is eager to do it, even in a way that preserves compatibility
with Python 2.x, I don't think it's bad. Especially because converting
to Python 3.x does not seem to be trivial.
I'm not talking about particular scripts that might well not be useful
anymore in a few years (think change-wc-format.py). We don't need to
update every line of our Python code. But I don't think there is anything
wrong with the general idea of trying to be Python 3.x-compatible as much
as possible, even at the cost of temporary extra complexity in the
scripts. Eventually, we can drop the Python 2.x code and things will
become simpler again.
Received on 2009-03-29 19:23:47 CEST