This thread hasn't been productive for a really long time now.
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 1:52 PM, Ethan Furman <ethan at stoneleaf.us> wrote:
>> On 12/16/2014 12:31 PM, Brian Curtin wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 2:15 PM, Skip Montanaro wrote:
> >> On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> >>>
> >>> IMO, you should consider forking your library code for Python2 and
> >>> Python3.
> >>
> >> I don't get the idea that Brett Cannon agrees with you:
> >>
> >>
>http://nothingbutsnark.svbtle.com/commentary-on-getting-your-code-to-run-on-python-23> >>
> >> While he doesn't explicitly say so, I got the distinct impression
> reading
> >> his recent blog post that he supports one source, not forked sources.
> >>
> >> In the absence to evidence to the contrary, I think of Brett as the most
> >> expert developer in the porting space.
> >
> > I'm a few inches shorter than Brett, but having done several sizable
> > ports, dual-source has never even on the table. I would prefer the
> > "run 2to3 at installation time" option before maintaining two versions
> > (which I do not prefer at all in reality).
>> I have a handful of projects. The tiny ones are one-source, the biggest
> one (dbf) is not.
>> If I had an entire application I would probably split the difference, and
> just have dual source on a single module to
> hold the classes/functions that
> absolutely-had-to-have-this-or-that-feature (exec (the statement) vs exec
> (the function)
> comes to mind).
>> --
> ~Ethan~
>>> _______________________________________________
> Python-Dev mailing list
>Python-Dev at python.org>https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev> Unsubscribe:
>https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/guido%40python.org>>
--
--Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20141216/8c4a4226/attachment.html>