On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 20:44, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
> 2009-03-29 20:02:25 Greg Stein napisał(a):
>> On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 19:23, Stefan Sperling <stsp_at_elego.de> wrote:
>> > 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.
>> I agree in principle, and Arfrever's work has been a great help for
>> our code. He's been making it more consistent, throwing out the
>> *really* old crap, and cleaning up some weirdnesses.
>> There are some changes (like these past two revs) which just make it
>> more complex than a plain 2.x needs to be.
> __eq__() and __ne__() were already used in subversion/tests/cmdline/svntest/wc.py
> before these changes, so for consistency they can also be used in
> subversion/tests/cmdline/svntest/tree.py and subversion/tests/cmdline/svntest/verify.py.
Precedence doesn't mean that the code is simpler. You turned one
method into four. There is nothing simpler or easier to understand
Back out the change.
Calls to cmp(a, b) turned into something like (a < b) - (b > a). I
don't know if that is right. It is non-trivial and less
Back out that change, too.
Received on 2009-03-29 21:08:21 CEST