Re: Python 3

[David Kastrup]

Dan Eble <address@hidden> writes:

> On Sep 27, 2019, at 16:34, Matthew Peveler <address@hidden> wrote:
>> 
>> I'll have another email later on with patches for having this branch run
>> under both python2.7 & 3 as the necessary backport efforts were not really
>> all that extravagant with just a handful of shims around the changes you
>> noted in long vs int, unicode vs str, StringIO vs io, iter.next vs
>> iter.__next__, reload, xrange vs range.
>
> Are these complications desirable?  A clean and obvious implementation
> requiring Python 3 will be easier to maintain.

And that's what we are going to end up with ultimately.  But I don't see
that a clean cut from Python2 to Python3 in a single step is easily
feasible and testable for all targets at once including all GUB targets.

If we are talking about "just a handful of shims", that certainly sounds
like causing the least trouble.  The plan would not be to maintain them
for extended amounts of time but rather to help getting the Python3
transition over with with the least amount of pain.

-- 
David Kastrup