RetroSearch Browse

Mon Mar 7 20:11:35 CET 2011 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2011-March/108915.html

Tim Golden wrote:
> 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. 

+1 here also.  This seems a sensible solution to the 'Windows Problem'.  ;)

~Ethan~

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2011-March/108915.html below:

[Python-Dev] [PEPs] Support the /usr/bin/python2 symlink upstream