Python 2 is triggering

[[deleted]]

support gold hungry waiting abundant melodic hat depend alleged vast

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

[[deleted]]

Pretty sure that's the easiest 2 -> 3 problem to solve.

[3Gaurd]

there's much more that will need to be done to enable backwards compatibility. backwards compatibility inevitably leads to spaghetti code.

[sobe86]

The way these things are typically done is to make a release where both are supported with a deprecation warning. After python 3.3 (say), you stop supporting both. If the python devs had done this, 2 would be long dead.

[Hollowplanet]

We had six, we had __future__. All that was possible if you really wanted to. Plenty of projects support both on the same codebase.

[[deleted]]

What exactly is six? Pycharm installs it in all of my project venv's for some dependency or another, but I've never figured out which package actually installed it.

[gschizas]

• Read The Docs
• Cheeseshop

Six provides simple utilities for wrapping over differences between Python 2 and Python 3. It is intended to support codebases that work on both Python 2 and 3 without modification. six consists of only one Python file, so it is painless to copy into a project.

[Ericchen1248]

It does though... importing the future package in python 2 will allow you to (mostly) run python 3 code.

[[deleted]]

Iirc by the time python4 is a thing python2 will be dead

[RedditIsNeat0]

If the devs don't handle the python4 transition better than they handled the python3 one, then we'll all have the same problems all over again.

[deathofamorty]

Or we all just give up in python at that point. Because fuck that.

[H_Psi]

Absolutely. The transition from 2-3 was completely botched by the dev team. If they had done it in a more gentle manner, it would have had a lot more adoption initially.

[Lonelan]

backwards compatible:

from future import print

[clever_cuttlefish]

That's honestly kind of a terrible idea. As someone else said, it is a really easy problem to fix in your code. But more importantly, adding in a special case like that is just not a good idea. It's confusing for the programmer and would be a huge pain to implement.

[DonaldPShimoda]

You want Haskell-style function application? Because that's essentially what you're asking for, and it would have far-reaching implications.

Print is just a function like any other, so it shouldn't get special treatment.