Am 12. November 2019 10:50:45 MEZ schrieb David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org>:
>Werner LEMBERG <w...@gnu.org> writes:
>
>>>> This package is written by Urs Liska <u...@openlilylib.org>, who is
>>>> quite busy these days. In case you have experience with Python 2
>>>> to 3 conversion, please help produce a new version!
>>>
>>> Should it still be backwards compatible with Python 2.7 if possible
>or
>>> is it ok to drop Python2 backwards compatibility completely? Option
>>> one is possible, option two gives cleaner code, and is easier to
>>> maintain in future.
>>
>> I favour option one. Inspite of the announced `death' of Python 2
>I'm
>> quite sure that this version series will stay for many years.
>
I wouldn't see the need for backwatd compatibility, but I must admit I haven't
thought about the issue too much.
>With regard to GUB, 2.7 compatibility makes for a much nicer transition
>period. But GUB is not likely involved in uses of that package
Correct, lilyglyphs doesn't play any role in creating or building LilyPond.
Urs
> which
>seems to be mainly used in a TeXlive context. I haven't checked, but I
>think that TeXlive is pretty much prepared to use Python3.
--
Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Gerät mit K-9 Mail gesendet.
