I should add, C++ 11 and Python 3 are great topics for ROSCon! ;) http://roscon.ros.org/?page_id=31 - Ken On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 9:11 AM, Ken Conley wrote: > On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 5:25 AM, Ingo Lütkebohle wrote: >> Hi, >> >> what about "official" Python 3 support, at least in the core libraries? > > A general response to, "is X officially supported?" > > 'official' support usually means: > >  1. There are tests/continuous integration for it >  2. Someone supports it > > The TUM guys did a great job getting us a lot of the way there and > their patches have been incorporated, but #1 and #2 are still not > present.  The patches also don't cover command-line tools, just the > libraries exercised by MORSE. > > Python 3 compatibility requires fairly complete coverage tests; I have > been refactoring the Python libraries to make this easier for someone > who wants to take this on, but there is no Py3k continuous > integration.  Py3k tests require a different set of assumptions > regarding strings, bytes, unicode, and iterators -- as an example, it > was possible to create filenames in 3.0 and 3.1 that Py3k programs > could not open. > > Similarly, for #2, the general rules is that someone has to use the > thing being supported, as you can't support something you don't use. > We can provide resources, such as build farm resources, to someone who > does wish to take on this role. > > We will continue to accept patches relating to Python 3, so long as > they don't break Python 2, and I will continue to update code to a > dual 2/3 style as I encounter it.  Trickier issues, such as the > bytes/string representation issues, remain active areas of work [1]. > >  - Ken > > [1]: http://answers.ros.org/question/2032/smach-introspection-server-fails-in-electric?answer=4499#4499 > >> I'm asking specifically because we're currently using Blender and/or >> MORSE, which requires Python 3. The TUM guys have already done some >> work to port ROS messaging to Python 3, but as far as I know that is >> not official, yet. >> >> cheers, >> Ingo >> >> On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Ken Conley wrote: >>> 2011/11/7 Stéphane Magnenat : >>>> Hello, >>>> >>>> What is the plan w.r.t. C++11? Now that the standard is out, and that a >>>> large part of features are available in recent g++ releases, we will see >>>> many upstream libraries going for it. As upstream developer, it is clearly >>>> always a question of whether to adopt such a recent standard, but given the >>>> huge speed-up in development it brings in some cases, I have decided to go >>>> for using features that are at least in gcc 4.4. >>> >>> The topic wasn't brought up during the Thirdparty SIG meeting.  The >>> approximation of that topic is that Lucid is the current lower >>> watermark (gcc 4.4) for integration in Fuerte and Groovy will move to >>> Oneiric (gcc 4.6). >>> >>> GCC C++ 11 status (still 'experimental'): http://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cxx0x.html >>> >>> It's always possible to reconvene the SIG to discuss C++ 11 more >>> specifically; I'm coordinator but I do not pretend to be knowledgeable >>> in that issue. >>> >>>  - Ken >>> >>>> >>>> To allow integration of recent code from research, I think that ROS should, >>>> whenever possible, embrace C++11. >>>> >>>> Kind regards, >>>> >>>> Stéphane >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Dr Stéphane Magnenat >>>> http://stephane.magnenat.net >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> ros-users mailing list >>>> ros-users@code.ros.org >>>> https://code.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-users >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ros-users mailing list >>> ros-users@code.ros.org >>> https://code.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-users >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Ingo Lütkebohle >> Bielefeld University >> http://www.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de/~iluetkeb/ >> >> PGP Fingerprint 3187 4DEC 47E6 1B1E 6F4F  57D4 CD90 C164 34AD CE5B >> _______________________________________________ >> ros-users mailing list >> ros-users@code.ros.org >> https://code.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-users >> >