[Stackless] __future__ policy
Martijn Faassen
faassen at startifact.com
Thu Jan 9 15:52:35 CET 2014
On 08/01/14 23:46, Emile van Sebille wrote:
> Ultimately I see this less of a v2 to v3 migration issue than simply
> calling a spade a spade -- we've now got v2 and v3 python languages. One
> of which we're trying to keep breathing life into. And it doesn't sound
> like the dev group is on board with there being two pythons (of their
> own making no less!)
>
> Be honest now, how many of us interested in a stackless v2.8 are wanting
> to migrate our code base to v3.x? I'd say none -- otherwise those would
> be migrating.
I'm interested in it because it might help with incremental porting.
Having new features available would also be nice of course. But those
can be synergistic: if new features taken from Python 3 are adopted, the
polyglot stackless/python 3.x language will become more powerful. It
will be quite different from the polyglot py2/py3 language in the sense
that you *do* get benefits from writing polyglot code, not only drawbacks.
Thus I think the ability to write more advanced polyglot code is
actually an added attraction of Stackless 2.8 for those interested in
migrating, or at least those maintaining polyglot libraries.
> I'd forgo migration compatibility as an issue and move on to scratching
> the itches. Let's grab the candy from v3 and save the migration battle
> for that day that might never come.
A bit of careful thought about how to go about this best won't hurt,
right? Perhaps it's right to see a difference between supporting
stepwise migration versus supporting a wider polyglot language.
Regards,
Martijn
More information about the Stackless
mailing list