On Feb 16, 12:47 pm, "Edward K Ream" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > There is also the 2to3 converter. The aim is that this will be > > effective enough that coders should be able to maintain a 2.X (2.6 ?) > codebase, run it through 2to3 and have the result run unchanged on > Python 3. That way there will be no need to maintain two code bases. > > I have offered a proof that the converter must change print to print2 (or > some other name) in order to maintain a common code base. How much clearer > can I be? If a common code base is desired, it *is* the end of print >
Why won't it be possible to make 'print' in Python 3 that supports all the functionality of the current print statement, and then translate to that ? I saw an assertion to the effect that it wasn't possible - but no proof. It sounds relatively straightforward for me... Fuzzyman http://www.voidspace.org.uk/python/articles.shtml > Edward > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Edward K. Ream email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Leo:http://webpages.charter.net/edreamleo/front.html > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
