GeezerVison

Eh, not sure if this is desirable, maybe lock the future behind a repl compiler flag:

# tmp.py
from __future__ import barry_as_FLUFL
1 != 2

$ gh-125331/python.exe tmp.py
  File "/Users/wannes/Documents/GitHub/cpython/tmp.py", line 2
    1 != 2
      ^^
SyntaxError: with Barry as BDFL, use '<>' instead of '!='

This is great though:

>>> from __future__ import barry_as_FLUFL
... 1 <> 2
... 
True

This change isn't backwards compatible, although it only affects 14 files (Github search).

Eh, not sure if this is desirable, maybe lock the future behind a repl compiler flag

I feel it should work like any other future import, so it can serve as an example.

This change isn't backwards compatible, although it only affects 14 files (Github search).

I feel those people are asking for it; they're using an undocumented joke feature. We can limit this change to 3.14 though.

Eh, not sure if this is desirable, maybe lock the future behind a repl compiler flag:

The whole point of this is that it works everywhere, not just in the REPL

This change isn't backwards compatible, although it only affects 14 files (Github search).

haha, we need to decide if is a bug or if is not. If we decide this should work everywhere the fact that those people are using is fixing the bug. In the issue I said I don't think this is a bug, but if we decide that it is, then it is not backwards incompatible: it's fixing a bug. Notice there is no documentation about how this is supposed to work and all observable behaviour is not protected for backwards compatibility.

cc @warsaw

How about the multiple-name imports?

from __future__ import annotations, barry_as_FLUFL
x: A
print(__annotations__['x'])  # A
print(1 <> 2)  # True

If I'm looking at the code correctly, it only accepts single-name imports for now..

How about the multiple-name imports?

from __future__ import annotations, barry_as_FLUFL
x: A
print(__annotations__['x'])  # A
print(1 <> 2)  # True

If I'm looking at the code correctly, it only accepts single-name imports for now..

Yeah, the PR is only a draft for evaluating the idea, is still missing many things like tests, NEWs...etc

@lysnikolaou can you take another look?

@JelleZijlstra I have fixed the relative imports, rebased and added a test, can you review it again?

Thanks @pablogsal for the PR 🌮🎉.. I'm working now to backport this PR to: 3.13.
🐍🍒⛏🤖

Thanks @pablogsal for the PR 🌮🎉.. I'm working now to backport this PR to: 3.12.
🐍🍒⛏🤖

GH-131062 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.13 branch.

GH-131063 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.12 branch.