Have you embraced Python 3.x yet?
in [Python]
|
From: Ben Finney on 29 Mar 2010 08:43 David Cournapeau <cournape(a)gmail.com> writes: > On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 5:26 AM, Chris Colbert <sccolbert(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > I won't switch until NumPy and SciPy make the jump. > > We're almost there, though (mostly thanks to other people's work on > Numpy): > > http://github.com/cournape/scipy3/branches/py3k Are you maintaining separate parallel Python 3 versus Python 2 code bases? If not, what are you doing in that regard? -- \ “The most common way people give up their power is by thinking | `\ they don't have any.” —Alice Walker | _o__) | Ben Finney
From: David Cournapeau on 29 Mar 2010 08:58
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 9:43 PM, Ben Finney <ben+python(a)benfinney.id.au> wrote: > David Cournapeau <cournape(a)gmail.com> writes: > >> On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 5:26 AM, Chris Colbert <sccolbert(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> > I won't switch until NumPy and SciPy make the jump. >> >> We're almost there, though (mostly thanks to other people's work on >> Numpy): >> >> http://github.com/cournape/scipy3/branches/py3k > > Are you maintaining separate parallel Python 3 versus Python 2 code > bases? No, we don't have the manpower to have two code bases - the C code handles both versions, and the python 2 code is converted to python 3 "on the fly". We are lucky not to have too much IO / string handling, which are the hard things to handle with 2to3. The hard part was NumPy, because it used the python C api so much. Porting scipy to something somewhat usable was an half-day job, cheers, David |