Home Original page

the Gravity of Python 2

Chris Angelico rosuav at gmail.com
Mon Jan 6 21:00:59 EST 2014 
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 12:55 PM, Devin Jeanpierre
<jeanpierreda at gmail.com> wrote:
> What if we decide there is no single source of responsibility, and it
> can't be limited exactly to a module, and make a __future__ feature
> the best we can regardless? We can still exact some benefit from a
> "sloppy" __future__ feature: we can still move code piecemeal.

I worry that it's starting to get into the realm of magic, though.
Maybe dict.keys() isn't the best example (you can easily make your
code 2+3 compat by just calling list() on it immediately, which is
effectively "from __past__ import absence_of_views"), but the issue is
the same with string autoencodings. It's really hard to define that
the + operator will do magic differently based on a future directive,
and changing the object ("this string will not autoencode") means
you're not tweaking things per-module, and behaviour will change
and/or break based on where some object was created, rather than the
settings on the module with the code in it.

ChrisA
More information about the Python-list mailing list