> Calling it python.exe would make the most sense for people who don't > look behind the curtain, but I agree it could potentially be confusing > for people. Further, we would need to ensure we didn't create an > infinite loop where the launcher python.exe found a python.exe it > thought was an appropriate sub-process, but where it turns out it is > actually another launcher. > > Having it installed by the Python installer also makes sense to me but > I'd be very interested in Martin's take on this (and also on everything > else we are discussing here). I think I would be opposed to adding a launcher to 2.7. It also wouldn't be necessary - if it was released with 3.3, then it could still do version switching for 2.7. If it's called "python.exe", I wonder what it should do when given a file that doesn't carry version information. > I suspect most people just > find it more convenient to launch such scripts from a console. Maybe a > quick poll on python-list would be reasonable... I certainly have script files that I double-click. However, those happen to be batch files, not Python. If I would do scripting in Python (which I don't do much these days), I would like to be able to double-click them. I always write my scripts so that they don't give exceptions :-) Actually, the one Python script I run regularly is msi.py, and I currently launch it in a terminal window, because I need to run it with c:\python25\python.exe, which double-clicking won't do for me. If I could double-click it, I would like that more (there is also the issue that the script needs the VS envvars set, so I'd need to find a solution to that, also). Regards, Martin
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