Methodically changing code to be suitable for Python 3 about karoo_gp HOT 7 CLOSED

Shirish, To begin, allow me to offer many thanks and praise for your effort. This is something I have dreaded, as I have no experience in Python 3 and knew it would be a bit of a challenge. Your effort is much appreciated. I am pleased to see that the error you have encountered is truly a non-critical one, as it is simply the sorting of the trees into a numeric order prior to printing them to screen. Even if this fails (but surely there is a solution), we simply revert to printing them in their current order. After this fails (if you are using iPython such that the variables are retained in memory) print the dictionary gp.fittest_dict.keys() to screen. The sort function in line 1351 is re-organizing what is presented to screen based upon the Tree ID (column 0). It should look something like this (ignore the actual values): In [2]: gp.fittest_dict Out[2]: {1: 3*b, 2: a + b + c, 3: 3*b, 4: 3*b, 5: 3*b, 6: 3*b, 7: 3*b, 8: 3*b, 9: 3*b, ... If yes, then something has changed in Numpy sort. If no, then that dictionary is not being built properly. Hope this helps! And I don't know if you noticed, but a few days ago Karoo was updated with a vastly expanded list of supported operators (adding trig, Boolean). Ultimately, we'll need to roll those changes into your branch. Thank you! kai

If you don't mind switching to v4.0, that would be splendid. You'll find very little change to the overall application. A number of new lines added at the very top, to define the new TF functions, which shifted all the lines numbers down a bit. So what you have done so far, if copy/pasted, will work just fine. Again, thank you! And do not hesitate to reach out for assistance. I am not a Python expert, but my code I know fairly well :)

Having been to Andrew's meetup speech today, I am keen to try the library. I wonder when you'll merge Jesse's PR? I appreciate your interest in Karoo GP, thank you. Jesse's branch is for Python 3.6. I am yet developing for 2.7. It is my experience that we will need to maintain both a 2.7 and 3.6 branch as the two are not interchangeable. While the print functions are backward compatible, a quick test demonstrates that the replacement of a raw_input to the 3.6 compliant input breaks things. I will reach out to Jesse with request for a 3.6 update once I push the new version I am working on. Cheers, kai