From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B86A61381F3 for ; Tue, 21 May 2013 14:33:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4B0EDE07D6; Tue, 21 May 2013 14:33:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C176EE07D6 for ; Tue, 21 May 2013 14:33:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.210] (S010600222de111ff.vc.shawcable.net [96.49.5.156]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: dolsen) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DE34833E1AE for ; Tue, 21 May 2013 14:33:41 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1369146785.30989.34.camel@big_daddy.dol-sen.ca> Subject: Re: [gentoo-catalyst] Python 3 support From: Brian Dolbec To: gentoo-catalyst@lists.gentoo.org Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 07:33:05 -0700 In-Reply-To: References: <519A9044.2050104@case.edu> <1369089959.30989.22.camel@big_daddy.dol-sen.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.6.3 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-catalyst@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-catalyst@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 2b400c92-df80-48ae-ac7b-eed2e02aaf4f X-Archives-Hash: 71b2e229d2493907f2b2493d9cead762 On Tue, 2013-05-21 at 12:33 +0200, Dmitry Selyutin wrote: > Hello everyone! > > Since I'm going to reimplement catalyst in GSoC, I'd like to tell my > opinion if it has some weight. :-) > Some years have passed since Python 3 was created, and nowadays I > think it is stable enough to select it. I'd rather thought about > Python 2 compatibility than Python 3, since it seems to become a > standart soon. To cut a long story short, I'd rather oriented to > Python 3 than Python 2, though I prefer to use Python 2 nowadays. Of > course compatibility will be one of main aims, but I see some benefit > if we will choose Python 3 rather than Python 2, though users may > successfully use catalyst with Python 2 in the future. It's just a > proposal, so I'd like to hear your opinions. If you don't agree, we > may rather think about Python 2. Dmitry, It's not that I don't want it to be python3 compatible as an afterthought. For the same reason as i told you already. Catalyst is a python2 application and is working code. It is better to fix all the poor areas of the code first before migrating to python3. Also, that will fix some of the compatibility issues on it's own. That way the changes can be properly tested. Changing the code to py3 will bring enough bugs into the system on it's own. It is far better to fix the poor code first. > Even more, I'd like to avoid some generators and provide this support > manually: I've always hated generators, especially code generators > (and GUI ones). > > What do you think about it? Catalyst should not need to have 2to3 run on it's codebase in the ebuild to be py3 compatible. python2.6 and up are mostly py3 compatible already. Catalyst does not do anything wild that should need porting between versions. There are also a few tricks that can be done to simplify compatibility without the need for conversion runs. -- Brian Dolbec