RetroSearch Browse

Tue Jul 5 00:05:31 CEST 2011 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2011-July/112214.html

Mark Hammond <skippy.hammond <at> gmail.com> writes:

> > It might be better to look in the registry for other Python
> > installations and ask the user which one to restore if there
> > is more than one. Trying to restore the "last" one would be
> > prone to breakage if the user didn't uninstall versions in
> > precisely the reverse of the order of installation.
> 
> While that makes alot of sense, the fact we are already "broken" in 
> exactly the same way means I hope we can treat the restoration of 
> associations as a separate issue - a worthwhile one, but not a 
> pre-requisite for this PEP being approved.

I agree, but there's one aspect of associations which is perhaps worth
exploring: the installation of a pre-3.3 version of Python after Python 3.3 is
installed with the launcher will, if the user selects "Register Extensions",
hijack the laumcher's associations to that earlier Python. Then bye bye launcher
- how do we deal with that? Or don't we? There'll be no warning for the user,
and this problem will occur even if the launcher is packaged separately from
Python. so I think we need to think about this a little more. What say?

Regards,

Vinay Sajip

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2011-July/112214.html below:

[Python-Dev] PEP 397 (Python launcher for Windows) reference implementation