On 14/01/2010 21:02, Nick Coghlan wrote: > However, I agree that that is a fairly unlikely scenario (since > preinstalled Pythons tend not to rely on the e Well, on the other hand I think that during the next few years it will be increasingly common for developers (and possibly users) to have Python 2 and Python 3 installed side-by-side. Many libraries and applications may never make the jump to Python 3 and Python users may be using 'legacy' Python 2 code for many years to come. It will also become increasingly common for developers to be using Python 3 *primarily* and for Python 3 only libraries and applications to emerge. Whilst there are workarounds we *are* in a situation that Python 2 and Python 3 share environment variables for the location of libraries and executing code on startup, whilst at the same time they are largely incompatible and need separate library paths and startup code. Michael -- http://www.ironpythoninaction.com/ http://www.voidspace.org.uk/blog READ CAREFULLY. By accepting and reading this email you agree, on behalf of your employer, to release me from all obligations and waivers arising from any and all NON-NEGOTIATED agreements, licenses, terms-of-service, shrinkwrap, clickwrap, browsewrap, confidentiality, non-disclosure, non-compete and acceptable use policies (”BOGUS AGREEMENTS”) that I have entered into with your employer, its partners, licensors, agents and assigns, in perpetuity, without prejudice to my ongoing rights and privileges. You further represent that you have the authority to release me from any BOGUS AGREEMENTS on behalf of your employer.
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