[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: svn commit: r36822 - in trunk: subversion/bindings/swig/python/svn subversion/tests/cmdline/svntest tools/dev

From: Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis <Arfrever.FTA_at_GMail.Com>
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 23:59:34 +0100

2009-03-29 21:07:59 Greg Stein napisał(a):
> On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 20:44, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
> <arfrever.fta_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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.
> >>
> >> But.
> >>
> >> 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.

In subversion/tests/cmdline/svntest/tree.py and subversion/tests/cmdline/svntest/verify.py
__cmp__() was replaced by 2 methods, not 4. I removed UnorderedOutput.__cmp__() which
was never called.

In tools/dev/contribulyze.py __cmp__() was replaced by 4 functions with simple,
one-line definitions.

Anyway, all definitions of __ne__() are very simple.

> Calls to cmp(a, b) turned into something like (a < b) - (b > a). I
> don't know if that is right.

http://docs.python.org/3.0/whatsnew/3.0.html#ordering-comparisons

A half of '(a > b) - (a < b)' expressions have been already removed.

-- 
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis

Received on 2009-03-30 00:59:52 CEST

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.