Re: [XeTeX] DVIasm

2016-02-08 Thread Bruno Le Floch
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

Re: [XeTeX] DVIasm

2016-02-08 Thread Philip Taylor
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

Re: [XeTeX] DVIasm

2016-02-08 Thread Wilfred van Rooijen
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