Installation error with python 3.4.0

byte-compiling build/bdist.linux-x86_64/egg/twitter/_file_cache.py to _file_cache.cpython-34.pyc
  File "build/bdist.linux-x86_64/egg/twitter/_file_cache.py", line 65
    except (AttributeError, IOError, OSError), e:
                                             ^
SyntaxError: invalid syntax

byte-compiling build/bdist.linux-x86_64/egg/twitter/api.py to api.cpython-34.pyc
  File "build/bdist.linux-x86_64/egg/twitter/api.py", line 770
    print 'request_url', request_url, parameters
                      ^
SyntaxError: invalid syntax

byte-compiling build/bdist.linux-x86_64/egg/twitter/__init__.py to __init__.cpython-34.pyc
  File "build/bdist.linux-x86_64/egg/twitter/__init__.py", line 36
    raise ImportError, "Unable to load a json library"
                     ^
SyntaxError: invalid syntax

byte-compiling build/bdist.linux-x86_64/egg/twitter/list.py to list.cpython-34.pyc

for the first error we should have

    except (AttributeError, IOError, OSError) as e:

this instruction is not python 2.5 compatible ( http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2535760/python-try-except-comma-vs-as-in-except )

for the seconde we should have

    print ('request_url', request_url, parameters)

to keep compatibility with python < 3 you could use

from __future__ import (print_function)

for the last it should be

    raise ImportError("Unable to load a json library")

[clee704]

Python 3 support is under development, though it seems inactive for now (last commit is 7 months ago). In addition to what you mentioned, there are much more things to be done to support Python 3; different packages (such as urllib and urllib2) and string/unicode, to name a few.

I don't see many good reasons not to develop this for Python 3 from now on. Python 2 seems too much against evolution and the idea that we should develop Python 3 support in a different branch is not motivating.

@clee704 If I am not mistaken, even the branch for Python 3 can't run in Python 3.

I remember seeing that yesterday. [Maybe it was the alcohol, can't say now.]

[sebastianw]

Most people I know still use python 2.x so we need to keep that one going. The 2to3 converter will cover stuff like the print function. So I'm not sure about implementing Python 3 specific stuff in the master right now. I am however for overwriting the current python3 branch with the current master as it has diverged a lot and bugs are fixed there that are long gone in the master. The python3 branch should closely follow master in my opinion and merge from it where possible, applying modifications for P3 where necessary.

@sebastianw That may be true. I don't know many programmers and from books and tutorials I barely see any Python 2 code. Real life scenarios may be different, though.

About this merging (and its conflicts), I think it would be nice if someone else handled it. I am a newbie to git and GitHub and can barely handle pull requests and forks.

I am way more interested in coding in the python3 branch and think that is mandatory to, as you said, have python3 "closely follow master (...) and merge from it where possible".

[clee704]

One way to support both Python 2 and 3 in a single code base is to use six or create a similar module yourself (like yourpackage._compat). See popular packages such as Flask and Werkzeug for how they are doing it.

[bear]

hmm, that was my mistake for not pointing out that print() and other python v3 only items should be wrapped in a _compat module.

python v2 is definitely the more used python for this package so +1 to bringing master over to pythonv3 branch and clearing the master for any v3 items.

I'm travelling today so won't be able to release a 2.1 until tomorrow. Thanks again to you all for being such a great python-twitter community!

[bear]

new python-v3 branch has been created and pushed with the latest code that was run thru the "futurize" helper code

this needs to be well tested

[radzhome]

I think we should write python 2 and 3 compatible code in the same branch and use libraries like future and six to have the same codebase that works in both py 2.x and 3.x

[bear]

I was exploring those options in the python 3 branch - +1 to any work you do in that branch that helps with this

[radzhome]

Should run the code with python 3.x and see what it complains about would
be a good start.

Here is a good migration guide:

http://docs.pythonsprints.com/python3_porting/py-porting.html

Its a project in itself for sure.

On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 10:58 PM, Mike Taylor notifications@github.com
wrote:

I was exploring those options in the python 3 branch - +1 to any work you
do in that branch that helps with this

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#155 (comment).

[radzhome]

This is really good!

https://github.com/PythonCharmers/python-future

futurize -w mymodule.py turns this Python 2 code into this code which runs
on both Py2 and Py3!

Amazing!

I think we need to revisit the unit tests for this conversion.

On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 11:14 PM, Radomir Wojcik radzhome@gmail.com wrote:

Should run the code with python 3.x and see what it complains about would
be a good start.

Here is a good migration guide:

http://docs.pythonsprints.com/python3_porting/py-porting.html

Its a project in itself for sure.

On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 10:58 PM, Mike Taylor notifications@github.com
wrote:

I was exploring those options in the python 3 branch - +1 to any work you
do in that branch that helps with this

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#155 (comment)
.

[bear]

agree with the thought that unit tests need updating - would love to see this be able to use Travis CI

[radzhome]

Cool is that free?

On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 11:57 AM, Mike Taylor notifications@github.com
wrote:

agree with the thought that unit tests need updating - would love to see
this be able to use Travis CI

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#155 (comment).

[bear]

yes, for public hosted sites on github that are open source