On 2/8/16, Philip Taylor wrote:
> P.S. Experimenting against both versions, I found that what Python 3
> detected as syntax errors in the Version 2 source prevented the test
> from ever being evaluated, but the following three changes allow the
> diagnostic to be issue correctly for both Python 2
Thank you, Bruno. I confess I speak not a word of Python, so my
suggested changes were pure guesswork. Thank you very much for
suggesting the proper replacements.
Philip Taylor
Bruno Le Floch wrote:
> 512 doesn't look like the right number (in Python 2, 012345 is octal
> 12345, not bin
Sorry to bump into this conversation, but if you want Python 2 and Python 3
compatibility, I think you also need to so something about the "%", since
Python 2.6 there is the str.format() method which is more reliable then
%-formatting (*). More importantly, the "%" will become deprecated in some