On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 1:39 AM, Marko Rauhamaa <ma...@pacujo.net> wrote: > Fabien <fabien.mauss...@gmail.com>: > >> But this was exactly my point! Today in 2015 it's incredibly easy to >> write py2/py3 code for a scientist. The whole SciPy track has done the >> transition. Not an issue anymore either, for me at least (python >> youngster ;-) > > I write both Py2 and Py3 code, but I keep the two worlds hermetically > separated from each other.
One of my students wrote some code for Python 3, and when I went to test it, I typed 'python scriptname' out of habit (most of my students use Py2)... and it almost perfectly worked. The only part that didn't was a class definition that didn't explicitly subclass object, and then used @property. Just changing that class declaration would have made his code 2/3 compatible - and he didn't put any effort into it at all. He literally made his code *accidentally* (almost-)Py2-compatible. You don't need to be afraid of the gap. ChrisA -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
