"Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [... snip stuff I don't follow ...] > However, it *is* a design goal to make 2.6 so that transition to > 3k becomes simpler. That's not a 3k feature, but a 2.6 one.
Not sure I care about this sort of thing for the purpses of my question. I just wanted to know: is it easy to make my code so it runs on 2.6 and 3.0, without funny stuff like a code translator? Seems wikipedia said "yes" and Guido said "no". [...] > to be seen. I personally believe that many projects won't need the 2to3 > tool, if they are willing to compromise on the notations used in the > source code. OK, so there's disagreement on this point amongst the Python 3 developers. That's interesting (I don't mean that in a negative way). [...] >> It >> seems to me that if I don't understand what the Python 3 developers >> expect the practicalities to be, most other interested people won't >> either ("interested" in the opposite sense to "disinterested" rather >> than to "uninterested"). > > I think comp.lang.python is then the wrong place to find out; the py3k > list likely reaches more of these developers. OTOH, I don't know whether > they all want to participate in a survey of their expectations... I was also hoping to get a quick answer rather than a long discussion, if any Python 3 developers were around to talk to the broader range of people that read this list. You have given your answers, I wonder if anybody else will turn up. > Rather than studying people's opinions, why don't you try to port your > own projects to 3k, and report whether you found it practical to use > a single source (assuming you would prefer such a solution for your > own project)? Because that might well tell me much less than asking a Python 3 developer, and yet take far more time, and fail to inform everybody else. John -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list