On Mon, 3 Dec 2012, Eli Bendersky wrote:>> One thing I am missing here is: >> What is the ** NEED ** for chasing a later >> Python version?> Did you read Gregory's message that starts this thread?I assume you mean the one in the archives: Sat Dec 1 14:57:48 CST 2012 Yes, actually, I did -- it boils down to: it's old, and Python 3 is coming No current problems other than a speculative unicode issue are raised -- Russ herrold
On 12/3/2012 3:09 PM, R P Herrold wrote:> Yes, actually, I did -- it boils down to: it's old, and Python 3 is > comingPython 3.x is being made the default version of python on some systems, so getting python 2.x/3.x concurrent compatibility will probably be imminently needed. From experience, Python 2.4/Python 3.x concurrent compatibility is just plain impossible. Also, I will point out that arguing that since RHEL 5 still uses 2.4 means we should keep our default at 2.4 is mildly specious, since running Clang on RHEL 5 has required, in my experience, several environment augmentations, most notably because the libc headers there won't compile in C99 mode, and I would be surprised if Clang is properly built by the default version of gcc there.> No current problems other than a speculative unicode issue are raisedI don't know any hard examples off the top of my head, but I do definitely remember (while grepping through python docs earlier today) being surprised that some of the functions I use on a consistent basis turned out to have a minimum of python 2.6. -- Joshua Cranmer News submodule owner DXR coauthor
On 12/03/2012 01:53 PM, Joshua Cranmer wrote:> I don't know any hard examples off the top of my head, but I do > definitely remember (while grepping through python docs earlier today) > being surprised that some of the functions I use on a consistent basis > turned out to have a minimum of python 2.6.I have nothing concrete to point to from the LLVM world, but from my own experience with my own scripting I found maintaining compatibility between Python 2.5 and 3.0 to be a tedious and time consuming process. I suspect there's much more of a maintenance burden here than might be first obvious. A second point worth making is that currently Python is not a dependence of someone building or installing LLVM/Clang. (Er, that hasn't changed recently right?) It's only a dependence for those running the tests (i.e. developers). Not sure how that changes the discussion if at all, but I thought it was worth mentioning. Yours, Philip Reames