I added a section on Python 3 to: http://www.ros.org/wiki/ROS/Roadmap which is linked to from the bottom of the rospy page. It's on the wiki, so feel free to add/edit. cheers, Ken On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 2:28 AM, Ingo Lütkebohle wrote: > Hi, > > thanks for the background info. I don't know how official /this/ is > ;-) but if it is, it would be good to add to the rospy pages in the > Wiki, to summarize the current state regarding Python 3k. Part of my > reason to ask here was because I couldn't find much information about > this, apart from a presentation by the TUM guys. > > At the moment I'm not using Py3K in enough places to take any of this > on, but I'll keep it in mind. > > Best Regards, > Ingo > > On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 6:11 PM, 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 >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >