Martin v. Löwis <mar...@v.loewis.de> added the comment: Andrew McNabb wrote: > Andrew McNabb <amcn...@mcnabbs.org> added the comment: > > By the way, I just noticed your notes on the wiki page and added a > response/question. It seems that the advice that you consider bad is > the official porting story (upgrade to 2.6 and use 2to3).
No, "drop support for Python older than 2.6" is completely, entirely different from "upgrade to 2.6". > I agree > that it's easier and better to not drop support for 2.4 and 2.5, but > this seems to be officially discouraged. Says who? > In any case, most of the current content on the wiki page is about > supporting Python 2 and Python 3 simultaneously. I think this is > actually better than the official documentation. If, by "official documentation", you refer to the 3 paragraphs in "what's new", then I agree that the text could be improved. However, I completely disagree that your Wiki page is better wrt. to running code simultaneously on 2.x and 3.x unmodified. Your page encourages such a style, and "what's new" discourages, pointing out that it leads to contorted code. I completely agree that it does, and the approaches proposed should be the absolute exception in any porting strategy. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue8127> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
