Guido van Rossum wrote: > > > [Trent] > > > What if someone needs to do something in Python code for either Win32 or > > > Win64 but not both? Or should this never be necessary (not > > > likely). I would > > > like Mark H's opinion on this stuff. > > [Mark] > > OK :-) > > > > I have always thought that it _would_ move to "win64", and the official way > > of checking for "Windows" will be sys.platform[:3]=="win". > > > > In fact, Ive noticed Guido use this idiom (both stand-alone, and as :if > > sys.platform[:3] in ["win", "mac"]) > > > > It will no doubt cause a bit of pain, but IMO it is cleaner... > > Hmm... I'm not sure I agree. I read in the comments that the _WIN32 > symbol is defined even on Win64 systems -- to test for Win64, you must > test the _WIN64 symbol. The two variants are more similar than they > are different. > > While testing sys.platform isn't quite the same thing, I think that > the same reasoning goes: a win64 system is everything that a win32 > system is, and then some. > > So I'd vote for leaving sys.platform alone (i.e. "win32" in both > cases), and providing another way to test for win64-ness. Just curious, what's the output of platform.py on Win64 ? (You can download platform.py from my Python Pages.) -- Marc-Andre Lemburg ______________________________________________________________________ Business: http://www.lemburg.com/ Python Pages: http://www.lemburg.com/python/
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