Skip to content

Conversation

@Homeblest
Copy link
Contributor

I was experimenting with Flatbuffers in python 2.7.18 and encountered an error which drove me insane thinking that I was running Python 3.x.

Turns out there's a type hint in the code that prevents Flatbuffers being used in Python 2.7.x

@Homeblest Homeblest changed the title fix: remove a single type hint to retain 2.7.x compatibility fix: remove a single type hint to retain python 2.7.x compatibility Feb 13, 2025
@fliiiix
Copy link
Contributor

fliiiix commented Mar 4, 2025

As someone who argued for removing python 2 support for recent flatbuffers version, im very interested what your use case is where you have a up to date flatbuffers version but a horribly outdated python version?

@Homeblest
Copy link
Contributor Author

As someone who argued for removing python 2 support for recent flatbuffers version, im very interested what your use case is where you have a up to date flatbuffers version but a horribly outdated python version?

My employer is toying with the idea of using flatbuffers in an environment that is using Stackless Python 2.7.x. since forever ago.

We are of course open to pinning the flatbuffers version as well, but since the only change required for compatibility is this, I decided to propose it.

@JordanWWood
Copy link

It would be excellent to get this merged as someone who's employer is also stuck on an old fork of stackless

@fliiiix
Copy link
Contributor

fliiiix commented Sep 25, 2025

@aardappel i guess this would be good since some people still use python 2.7

@aardappel
Copy link
Collaborator

I thought we had decided to stop supporting Python 2.x, but this is such a small change I think we can merge it if that helps.

There's a small conflict though, if you could fix that first.

@jtdavis777
Copy link
Collaborator

#8799 implements this fix. Closing this PR.

@jtdavis777 jtdavis777 closed this Nov 24, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants