Mailing List Archive

Hi.

I think it is preferable if we stick to a single project, which gets
used as a runtime dependency, and since six is already used in many
projects, I'd continue to use it everywhere.

The 2to3 script or versions thereof shouldn't introduce a new runtime
dependency, as you only need to check in the code produced by these
scripts, so you can use those just fine. I've also used the zope.fixers
project, which extends 2to3 to apply some zope.interface specific
conversions.

I did run 2to3 on the Zope2 project and the result wasn't all too
helpful. There were many instances were the conversion produced invalid
results or changed behavior in undesirable ways, so I ended up manually
fixing and looking at each change anyways.

One thing I do find helpful is running a Python 3 pep8/flake8 over the
codebase, as it points out most of the places where you have invalid
Python 3 syntax.

Just my 2 cents,
Hanno

On Tue, Oct 4, 2016, at 11:29, Martin Häcker wrote:
> Hi python3-porters,
>
> At the Ressurection-Sprint in Halle, I learned that most of python 3
> porting in zope is done using six <http://pythonhosted.org/six/>.
>
> I've stuck to it during the work there, as it seemed to be the standard
> that other zope packages have adopted.
>
> But since futurize <http://python-future.org> offers a much more
> comprehensible implementation of the 2to3 Script and seems to be better
> maintained - I'd like to use it instead. Especially because it promises
> to make porting to py3 while maintaining py2 compatibility easier and
> faster. Any good reasons (besides consistency) not to use it? Is there
> some sort of consensus on this topic that has been reached before?
>
> Best Regards,
> Martin Häcker
_______________________________________________
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -
https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )

Hi,

On 04.10.16 13:49, Hanno Schlichting wrote:
> I think it is preferable if we stick to a single project, which gets
> used as a runtime dependency, and since six is already used in many
> projects, I'd continue to use it everywhere.

That does make a lot of sense - hence why I stuck with six and asked
this question here.

> The 2to3 script or versions thereof shouldn't introduce a new runtime
> dependency, as you only need to check in the code produced by these
> scripts, so you can use those just fine. I've also used the zope.fixers
> project, which extends 2to3 to apply some zope.interface specific
> conversions.

zope.fixers is new to me - I'l have a look there. Regarding 2to3 of
futurize: It does depend on futurize, as futurize provides backports of
the new python3 types (bytes most prominently, but pretty much all of
them) and knows how to import and use them from futurize. So it does do
stuff other 2to3 utilities can't do.

> One thing I do find helpful is running a Python 3 pep8/flake8 over the
> codebase, as it points out most of the places where you have invalid
> Python 3 syntax.

futurizes 2to3 shell script implementation is called 'futurize' and it
can run in multiple stages. Stage1 will just upgrade code to idomatic
python 2.7 so you can get rid of almost all the incompatible syntax with
strong guarantees that no intention change is done. Also, since this
doesn't add any dependency on futurize, its something I can recommend.

> Just my 2 cents,
> Hanno

Thanks! :)

Martin
_______________________________________________
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -
https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )