RetroSearch Browse

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20150310/0ed4b10c/attachment.html below:

<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=windows-1256">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Exchange Server">
<style></style>
</head>
<body>
<div>
<div>
<div style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif; font-size:11pt">It's a bug. File and assign to me please. 
 
Top-posted from my Windows Phone</div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<hr>
From:
<a href="mailto:p.f.moore@gmail.com">Paul Moore</a> 
Sent:
ý3/ý10/ý2015 3:35 
To:
<a href="mailto:Steve.Dower@microsoft.com">Steve Dower</a> 
Cc:
<a href="mailto:python-dev@python.org">Python Dev</a> 
Subject:
Windows installer - File associations in "per user" installs 
 
</div>
</div>

<div class="PlainText">On 9 March 2015 at 15:37, Steve Dower <Steve.Dower@microsoft.com> wrote: 
>> Maybe the answer is that we simply start recommending that everyone on Windows 
>> uses per-user installs. It makes little difference to me (beyond the fact that 
>> when I want to look at the source of something in the stdlib, the location of 
>> the file is a lot harder to remember than C:\Apps\Python34\Lib\whatever.py) but 
>> I doubt it's what most people will expect. 
> 
> I'm okay with this. Installing for all users is really something that could be considered an advanced option rather than the default, especially since the aim (AIUI) of the all-users install is to pretend that Python was shipped with the OS. (I'd kind of
like to take that further by splitting things more sensibly between Program Files, Common Files and System32, but there's very little gain from that and much MUCH pain as long as people are still expecting C:\PythonXY installs...) 
 
I've just tried a per-user install of Python 3.5a2. The machine in 
question previously had (and still has) a system install of 3.4, with 
"Make this Python the default" selected (so the .py extension is 
associated with that version and specifically the 3.4 launcher). 
 
I didn't get the option to associate .py files with 3.5 (there's *no 
way* I'd consider that to be advanced usage - if I'm installing 
Python, why wouldn't I want to associate it with .py files [1]) and I 
still seem to have .py associated with the 3.4 launcher, not the 3.5 
one that's in my %APPDATA% folder. 
 
 >cmd /c assoc .py 
 .py=Python.File 
 >cmd /c ftype python.file 
 python.file="C:\WINDOWS\py.exe" "%1" %* 
 
I'm happy if a per-user install of 3.5 makes a per-user filetype 
association (assuming such a thing is possible, I've never tried it 
before) but it's absolutely not OK if we're planning on recommending 
an install type that doesn't create the right association. 
 
Paul 
 
[1] Given that I have 3.4 and am installing an experimental 3.5 
version, it's not actually at all clear cut which version I want as my 
default. In all honesty, I don't think this decision is actually 
something that should be defaulted. Maybe the "don't make the user 
make any choices in the default selection" approach has gone a little 
too far here? 
</div>

</body>
</html>

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