Backporting from Python 2.3 to Python 2.2
We have a home-grown templating system at work, which I intend to dedicate an entry to some time in the future. We originally wrote it in Python 2.2, but upgraded to Python 2.3 a while ago and have since been evolving our code in that environment. Today I found a need to load the most recent version of our templating system on to a small, long neglected application that had been running the original version ever since it had enough features to be usable.
Unfortunately, this application was running on a server that only had Python 2.2. Installing Python 2.3 would have been somewhat more painful here than on other servers we run for reasons I won’t go in to, so I decided to have a go at getting our current code to run under the older Python version.
In the end, I only had to make three minor changes, all at the top of the file in question.
I added
from __future__ import generatorsas the very first line of the file. We use generators (with theyieldstatement) in a few places—this feature was only properly added in Python 2.3, but was made available in Python 2.2 as a “future enhancement” through the aforementioned obscure import.I added
True, False = 1, 0on the next line down. Surprisingly, Python 2.2 had no support for a boolean type and instead used a test for non-zero. The above line defines constants that behave enough like Python 2.3’s True and False to avoid any problems.I defined an
enumeratefunction, which was introduced for real in Python 2.3. Here’s the code I used:def enumerate(obj): for i, item in zip(range(len(obj)), obj): yield i, item
All in all it only took around ten minutes to put the above together, after which the script worked just fine. It was interesting to see how our code had grown to rely on Python 2.3 features without us realising it.
Update: Check this entry’s comments for improvements to the above code snippets.
Didn't Python 2.2.1 add
YourTrueandFalseas builtins (but nobooltype, of course)? I know it wasn't in 2.2.0, but I think they added them shortly thereafter.enumerateisn't strictly correct. The iterable protocol doesn't imply len, so you should simply maintain your own index (a lai += 1) of the objects. I'd paste code, but I hate your comment system.Bob Ippolito - 9th June 2004 13:00 - #
Bob: you're absolutely right on the enumerate thing. I was just trying to get a small script working and the incorrect code I knocked out worked fine, but my enumerate function wouldn't work with "real" iterators as opposed to lists. I guess a more correct implementation would be:
Simon Willison - 9th June 2004 15:27 - #
Ian Bicking - 9th June 2004 18:13 - #
try: True, False except NameError: True, False = 1, 0True and False were added in a bugfix release of 2.2 :-(Anthony Baxter - 16th June 2004 10:03 - #