Re: [Biopython] Biopython 1.76 plans

I've logged the Bio._py3k removal as a good first time contributor issue:

https://github.com/biopython/biopython/issues/2420

Peter

On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 8:06 PM Peter Cock <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> A brief discussion with Chris about next steps in 2020 once this release is done.
>
> Peter
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> From: Chris Rands <[email protected]>
> Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 at 18:03
> Subject: Re: [Biopython] Biopython 1.76 plans
> To: Peter Cock <[email protected]>
>
>
> Thanks Peter, I like your plan, and please do fwd to the mailing list if you think it's of broad interest
>
> Chris
>
> ________________________________
> From: Peter Cock <[email protected]>
> Sent: 18 December 2019 6:09 PM
> To: Chris Rands <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [Biopython] Biopython 1.76 plans
>
> Shall we stay on the list? My plan:
>
> (1) Release Biopython 1.76 with Python 2.7 and 3.5 support
> (2) Turn off testing under Python 2.7 and 3.5
>
> Then tackle the low handing fruit (in no particular order):
>
> (3) Remove Bio._py3k compatibility shim
> (4) Look for and remove other Python 2 specific workarounds
> (5) Remove no longer needed __future__ imports etc
> (6) Remove all the Python 2/3 overhead in the C code
>
> Also, where sensible and after appropriate discussion, take
> advantage of new language or standard library features in
> Python 3.6+ as appropriate (e.g. sorted dictionaries by default
> without needing to import OrderedDict from collections).
>
> I hadn't thought much about f-strings (beyond that I'm not
> used to them and that makes me dislike them), but that could
> be a good example.
>
> Peter
_______________________________________________
Biopython mailing list  -  [email protected]
https://mailman.open-bio.org/mailman/listinfo/biopython