On 12 February 2015 at 16:42, Steve Dower <Steve.Dower at microsoft.com> wrote: > None of my installer changes so far have had a PEP, and only a few people have complained about that :) (it does have more documentation than I've ever written for an installer before though) :-) You shouldn't bet on my judgement of what needs a PEP, I usually get it wrong... > IIRC, there was a PEP for executing ZIP files directly (2.6-era?), which I believe are the purpose of those extensions. If "py.exe spam.pyz" already works, I don't see any need for a PEP to add the association in the installer. Yes, "py spam.pyz" works fine. +1 on having the associations. Actually, I've just remembered, it's already in PEP 441, which hasn't been approved but which goes further and includes a stdlib tool to create pyz files. I'm not sure if that changes things at all... Paul
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