On Sat, 2 May 2015, Robert Collins wrote:
This still seems like a profoundly poor idea: 'is X python3 compatible' is a turing completeness problem. There are some scripts where you can determine compatibility, but many where you cannot until it blows up (particularly ones with subtle bugs in string type correctness). IMO Folks existing scripts should be left to use python, but encouraged to used python2 if they can't be changed to python3, and new scripts should just use python3.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but doesn't this speak in _favor_ of including explicit metadata about Python 3 compatibility, and relying on that rather than guesses, and always defaulting to Python 2 in the absence of solid metadata?
If you're worried about people advertising Python 2/3 simultaneous compatibility without exhaustive testing... I'm a bit worried about that, too, but I don't think that's worse than people switching to `#!/usr/bin/python3` without exhaustive testing, which is certainly going to happen occasionally (since not everyone has tests with 100% code coverage).
-- Geoffrey Thomas https://ldpreload.com geofft@ldpreload.com