Re: Is it worth back porting PEP 3147 to Python < 3.2?
My take of the situation:
Yes, please backport PEP 3147 to at least Python 2.7.
The rationale: we'll need to support both Python 2.x and Python 3.x for
several years, and it will be nice if the same library package can be
made to support both 2.x and 3.x.
It would also be nice to define a way to specify that a tree of Python
2.7 scripts are to be compiled into Python 3.x bytecode, by specifying
that the compilation process has first to run 2to3
(http://docs.python.org/py3k/library/2to3.html#to3-reference) on the
Python scripts and actually compile the 2to3's output.
--- Omer
On Mon, 2010-04-19 at 17:53 -0400, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Friday, Guido approved and I landed the implementation of PEP 3147 on the
> py3k trunk (what will be Python 3.2). This allows multiple versions of Python
> to coexist on the same system without the need for symlinks to handle pyc file
> incompatibility.
>
> http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3147/
>
> This will be officially supported in Python starting with 3.2. It will not
> however be available in upstream Python 2.7. The PEP does recognize however
> that distros may want to back port the feature to get its advantages now.
> Although I have not yet tried to do so, I think the essential elements of the
> PEP should be fairly easy to back port to Python 2.6, 2.7 and 3.1. The
> question is, should we do this?
--
$ python
>>> type(type(type))
<type 'type'> My own blog is at http://www.zak.co.il/tddpirate/
My opinions, as expressed in this E-mail message, are mine alone.
They do not represent the official policy of any organization with which
I may be affiliated in any way.
WARNING TO SPAMMERS: at http://www.zak.co.il/spamwarning.html
Reply to: