On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 4:01 PM, William Stein <wst...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Thursday, June 1, 2017, Erik Bray <erik.m.b...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 10:00 PM, John H Palmieri >> <jhpalmier...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > I have a proposal for making the transition to use Sage with Python 3. >> > See >> > https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/23119 for details (and a branch which >> > works, at least in my limited testing). The proposal: >> > >> > - Have a new command "sage3" which runs Sage using Python 3. >> > >> > - If you build Sage with the environment variable SAGE_PYTHON3 set to >> > "yes", >> > then build for both Python 2 and Python 3. Although this will increase >> > the >> > build time and the required disk space (by 800MB when I tried it), it >> > means >> > that you should have a choice about how to run Sage which does not >> > depend on >> > how you built it. >> > >> > - Although for now, SAGE_PYTHON3 will not be set, eventually we could >> > switch >> > to having it always set to "yes", to encourage Python 3 development and >> > prevent Python 3 incompatibilities. (Then later we can change the >> > behavior >> > again, only building for Python 3.) >> > >> > - It would probably be good to have a ./configure option instead of the >> > environment variable, but I have not tried to implement that. >> > >> > Please provide feedback. I have not heard any other suggestions for how >> > to >> > run Sage with Python 3, so I thought a concrete proposal would be good >> > to >> > get the ball rolling. >> > >> > This proposal still requires solving the problems Frédéric has already >> > mentioned >> > (https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sage-devel/FqR-37Fu3tY/RjDx_SG_BAAJ), >> > as >> > well as ongoing work to make the Sage library compatible with Python 3. >> > Everyone is encouraged to contribute! >> >> I basically like this idea. Though rather than a separate `sage3` >> command why not just a simple flag to the existing `sage` command? >> E.g. `sage -3`. This would have the effect of setting the default >> Python for all things that use Python (`sage -pip`, `sage -python`, >> and just the sage interpreter itself) to Python 3. > > > > Maybe we could also redo the command line options parsing properly for the > new sage3 command? Eg use sub commands like git, use the python argparse > module properly, etc.
I've been thinking of cleaning up the main `sage` command anyways, though it would be good to transition to a new, better UI for it as well. For the top level of the `sage` command I wouldn't use Python. For example, for things like `sage -sh` (or whatever the future equivalent is) starting up the Python interpreter just to launch a shell is too slow. But sub-command handling can still be implemented cleanly and nicely in a bash script. Individual sub-commands may, in turn, be written in Python depending on how relevant the overhead is. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
