On 07/03/2011 10:49, Mark Hammond wrote: > On 7/03/2011 9:33 PM, Paul Moore wrote: >> That sounds like a fairly cool idea. So if I follow what you're >> suggesting, we'd have a single python.exe, probably installed in >> system32, which did the necessary command line juggling and shebang >> parsing, then simply redirected to the appropriate Python interpreter? >> Presumably that launcher would be pretty version independent, so (a) >> the one that gets installed with Python 3.3 would support older >> versions even though they didn't include the launcher themselves, (b) >> overwriting the launcher when a new version of Python is installed >> wouldn't be too big a deal, and (c) it could be released as a >> standalone package for people with only older versions of Python >> installed? > > Yup - although I think a pythonw.exe launcher would be needed too (for > the same reasons we need python.exe and pythonw.exe today) > >> I like this idea. If I had the spare time (I don't :-() I'd work on >> this myself. >> >> +1 from me. Agreed all round. In the highly unlikely event that I find some time I too might have a play with the idea. The devil will undoubtedly be in the details. I've implemented a Pure-python version of this before, but found it unacceptably slow for anything but ad-hoc use. Still, it was useful for that :) TJG
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