Home Original page

[Python-porting] Port of psycopg2

Benjamin Peterson musiccomposition at gmail.com
Sun Dec 7 23:53:41 CET 2008 
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 3:45 PM, Mark Hammond <skippy.hammond at gmail.com> wrote:
> Brett Cannon wrote:
>>
>> Well, there are two things that require porting: Python and extension
>> modules. So that is a high-level point of separation. From there we
>> can list the various steps that are needed (i.e. port to 2.6 with no
>> warnings, run with -3, add any __future__ statements you want, run
>> 2to3, test). The trick is where to put little tips like making sure
>> you clearly separate your string code from your bytes code.
>
> Although the official line is to port to 2.6 first, it will be interesting
> to know how many people who are hanging out here care about earlier versions
> too?  ie, while many *application* authors can easily choose to target a
> specific version, *library* authors may not be so lucky.
>
> Is there anyone else here for whom the step of "port to python 2.6" is a
> deal-breaker?

I'm not myself dealing with this, but Armin Ronacher and I were
chatting about this on IRC. He says that for Jinja it is impossible to
maintain 2.x and 3.x in the same code base while keeping compatibility
with 2.4. The result of this conversation is a 2to3 feature request:
Add pragmas to 2to3 that would hint at the correct translation.



-- 
Cheers,
Benjamin Peterson
"There's nothing quite as beautiful as an oboe... except a chicken
stuck in a vacuum cleaner."
More information about the Python-porting mailing list