Jonathan Wakely <jwakely....@gmail.com>: > On Wed, 18 Jul 2018 at 11:56, David Malcolm wrote: > > Python 2.6 onwards is broadly compatible with Python 3.*. and is about > > to be 10 years old. (IIRC it was the system python implementation in > > RHEL 6). > > It is indeed. Without some regular testing with Python 2.6 it could be > easy to introduce code that doesn't actually work on that old version. > I did that recently, see PR 86112. > > This isn't an objection to using Python (I like it, and anyway I don't > touch the parts of GCC that you're talking about using it for). Just a > caution that trying to restrict yourself to a portable subset isn't > always easy for casual users of a language (also a problem with C++98 > vs C++11 vs C++14 as I'm sure many GCC devs are aware).
It's not very difficult to write "polyglot" Python that is indifferent to which version it runs under. I had to solve this problem for reposurgeon; techniques documented here... http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/practical-python-porting/ -- <a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond</a> My work is funded by the Internet Civil Engineering Institute: https://icei.org Please visit their site and donate: the civilization you save might be your own.
