Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Document versions of Python supported #42

Closed
peterjc opened this issue Dec 4, 2015 · 5 comments
Closed

Document versions of Python supported #42

peterjc opened this issue Dec 4, 2015 · 5 comments
Labels

Comments

@peterjc
Copy link
Contributor

peterjc commented Dec 4, 2015

After spending some time on this, I have concluded that the tool currently only works or at least is only tested under Python 2.7.

There are incompatibilities under Python 2.6, e.g. using "blah {} {}".format(...) without numbering the insertion points, or use of "new" unittest methods like .assertIsInstance. This looks fixable with moderate effort, but probably not worthwhile? Instead make it clear if Python 2.6 is not supported.

There are incompatibilities under Python 3, such as clear syntax errors e.g. #39. This does seem worth fixing, #40.

@peterjc
Copy link
Contributor Author

peterjc commented Dec 4, 2015

Also I'd suggest making setup.py explicitly check and error on unsupported versions of Python.

@bewt85
Copy link
Contributor

bewt85 commented Dec 4, 2015

Evening @peterjc, thanks for your comments. Your suspicions are correct and that this has only been developed on and tested with Python 2.7. I think you're right that this could be made a lot clearer to save others from similar frustration.

While I'm slowly getting on board the Python3 train I'm not hugely excited about spending time making the changes necessary to make this Python2 and Python3 compatible. I'll have a chat with the others in the office after the weekend but I'd not hold your breath unless it turns out that theres lots of hidden demand for this.

Having said that, I've also never converted something from Python2 to Python3 so this might be a doddle? Maybe you're familiar with some good tools or resources?

@bewt85
Copy link
Contributor

bewt85 commented Dec 4, 2015

Partially addressed by #44

@peterjc
Copy link
Contributor Author

peterjc commented Dec 4, 2015

I've got first hand experience of a a single code base running under Python 2.6, 2.7 and 3.3 or later (Biopython), while NumPy is another large example doing this. i.e. Same code which works on both without changes!

As long as your dependencies are available, this shouldn't be that bad - and TravisCI is a big help with keeping things working even if the developers mainly use just one platform.

In your case I would suggest 2.7 plus 3.4 onwards, or maybe even just 2.7 and 3.5 onwards.

I've hit enough minor glitches with Python 3.0 to 3.3 to suggest you skip them entirely.

@andrewjpage
Copy link
Member

Now documented in the Read me that it is python 2.7 only

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants