On 2007-09-22, Carl Banks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 12:57:35 +0000, Grant Edwards wrote:
>> On 2007-09-22, Carl Banks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Of course it would be. The reason I mention it is that automatic
>>> convertibility is a key factor in whether a change can make it into
>>> Python 3.
>>
>> It matters not whether fugly code is automatically generated or manually
>> generated. It's still hard to read and maintain.
>
> By my understanding, it really doesn't matter that much.
>
> The transition tool's purpose is to allow a subset of 2.x code to run on
> 3.x, so that developers don't have to maintain separate codebases to
> support both. The 3.x code that is produced isn't intended to be read or
> maintained. So no big deal if it's a little ugly.
Eh? If you remove bitwise operators, then doing bitwise
operations is going to be ugly, hard to write, and hard to read
and maintain. I don't see what 2.x vs. 3.x vs. a "transition
tool" has to do with it.
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! People humiliating
at a salami!
visi.com
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
