On zaterdag, aug 9, 2003, at 07:34 Europe/Amsterdam, Mark Hammond wrote:
> * Propose a new executable that some Python platforms can choose to
> distribute - eg, 'python-package{.exe}'. This is really just
> identical to
> python.exe, but with the only 'if doesnt start with 'python'' parts of
> your
> proposal.
Even though having the one Python interpreter fill a dual role is a hack
I still think you should try to go for it, and I say this from
experience.
MacPython-OS9 has had applets (which is basically what you're after)
since about
1.3 or 1.4. Initially, applets had a special main program. At some
point I hacked
something up (now that I think about it it may not have been me, it may
have
been Just who did it) so that the two main programs were united, and
this
really made life a lot simpler and less error-prone.
On the Mac life was easy, though, because of the resource fork. The main
program simply started with
if (there's a 'PYC ' resource named '__main__')
I'm an applet;
else
I'm a normal interpreter;
But: now that I'm thinking this whole idea through a little bit: if this
is all meant for packaging applications, how are you going to handle
extension
modules? These can't be put into zipfiles, or can they?
(Again, MacOS had a neat hack for this: you could put multiple shared
libraries
and executables and more into a single file. But I don't think you can
do
that one most systems).
--
- Jack Jansen <Jack.Jansen at oratrix.com>
http://www.cwi.nl/~jack -
- If I can't dance I don't want to be part of your revolution -- Emma
Goldman -
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4