embedded configobj imports generators from __future__

[James Westby]

Hi,

In a grep of the Ubuntu archive bzr was flagged as importing from
__future__, which comes from the embedded configobj.

With the 2.6/3.0 transitions imports from __future__ should be checked.

I know vila and others did work on 2.6 compatibility, and believe bzr
works with 2.6, but I wanted to file a bug on this to be sure.

Feel free to close if we have no worries about this.

Thanks,

James

[Vincent Ladeuil (vila)]

Thanks for the heads up !

Specifically, configobj uses:
   from __future__ import generators
which is needed only for python-2.2 or 2.3.
bzr requires 2.4 where generators are implemented.

Feel free to re-open the bug if you want us to comment out/delete the offending line.

[James Westby (james-w)]

On Wed, 2008-11-26 at 16:15 +0000, vila wrote:
> Thanks for the heads up !
>
> Specifically, configobj uses:
> from __future__ import generators
> which is needed only for python-2.2 or 2.3.
> bzr requires 2.4 where generators are implemented.
>
> Feel free to re-open the bug if you want us to comment out/delete the
> offending line.

I'm happy for this to be closed if that import is a no-op
that will be preserved in python 2.6/3.0.

I know you have tested with 2.6, and so I can only assume it is
fine to have it there.

Thanks for your time.

James

[Vincent Ladeuil (vila)]

You can Use The Source James :) __future__ is a regular python package, I don't have a python3k handy but I'm pretty sure the package is still there. After all it exists to ensure forward compatibility, it will be a bit strange that it can break backward compatibility.

By the way, what is the rationale with checking imports from __future__ ? Do you have examples where it break things ?

[James Westby (james-w)]

On Wed, 2008-11-26 at 17:42 +0000, vila wrote:
> You can Use The Source James :) __future__ is a regular python package,
> I don't have a python3k handy but I'm pretty sure the package is still
> there. After all it exists to ensure forward compatibility, it will be a
> bit strange that it can break backward compatibility.

Ah, I didn't know that it was a regular package, I thought it was done
via some magic.

> By the way, what is the rationale with checking imports from __future__
> ? Do you have examples where it break things ?

I don't know, I was just asked to report this.

Thanks,

James