Re: [Swig-devel] GSoC proposal: Python 3.0 support

[William S F. <ws...@fu...>]

Monty Taylor wrote:
> Haoyu Bai wrote:
> 
>>>   
>> In my opinion, like Python 3.0 is a fork and refactoring of 2.X, our
>> Python 3 backend also should be a
>> fork of the 2.X backend? Things like classic class and apply() removed
>> from Python 3, so corresponding
>> code also can be removed from our backend, to make it clean and easy to
>> maintain.
>>
>> Indeed this way made code duplicated, but I think we should try.
> 
> Yeah. The duplicated code doesn't bother me so much at the beginning,
> but tracking bug fixes over time would be a pain.
> 
> I almost think it would be worthwhile to take the python2 code, stick it
> into a bzr or hg repos, then branch it for the python3 code. Then you
> could copy both of them into the main source tree when it was time. That
> way you could work in python2 and merge the changes over using a VCS
> instead of doing it by hand... but then you'd have a place that wasn't
> in the tree where dev was going on.
> 

Surely a SVN branch would be fine while this was developed?

Personally, I'd rather see python 3 support added as a commandline 
switch, so that just one module has to be maintained. If the output is 
radically different only then should a new language be considered.

William