On 23/03/2011 01:30, Mark Hammond wrote: > On 23/03/2011 6:12 AM, Michael Foord wrote: >> On 22/03/2011 07:21, Mark Hammond wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> I've made some changes to the draft PEP and checked it into the PEP >>> repository as PEP397. The reference implementation is currently being >>> tracked at http://bugs.python.org/issue11629. >>> >> >> Hey Mark, >> >> One way of supporting alternative implementations (that may not even >> have a standard install directory) is allowing configuration. e.g. >> config.ini >> >> [paths] >> ironpython = c:\Program Files\IronPython 2.7\ipy.exe >> ironpython2.7 = c:\Program Files\IronPython 2.7\ipy.exe >> jython = c:\Users\foobar\jython2.5\jython.exe > > Hi Michael, > > I'd have no problem with that in general, but how would you feel about > letting the PEP stand as it is without this additional requirement and > then treat this as an additional feature to be thrashed out > separately? I intentionally worded the PEP to specifically allow > these kinds of features to be added outside the PEP process. > > For example, I guess the name of the INI file wouldn't be config.ini, > and I guess there might need to be a strategy to allow it to exist in > multiple places for when users want this feature but don't have write > access to the location of py.exe. Then people might want it to be in > the cwd, or in any parent of the cwd, etc... Further, it might also be > possible to support this with simple environment variables which might > wind up being just as (or more) reasonable (the concept of per-user > environment variables already exist and a UI already exists for > editing them, and it would allow different cmd-prompts to have > different "rules" with minimal complexity) - not that I am necessarily > advocating this - I'd just prefer the PEP to not get bogged down with > those kinds of issues. > Well... I'd rather see the pep implemented as is than not implemented. On the other hand I think it would be a great shame for it to be implemented in a way that excludes-until-someone-else-fixes-it the other implementations. (i.e. I think built-in support for other implementations would be vastly preferable.) It's your PEP though, and I'm still +1 on the idea. I'm not married to it being a config file - registry entries would be fine (implementations could modify their installers or ship scripts to create the correct entries). I'm not sure about environment variables, I suppose it would be ok - but modifying a single environment variable with multiple paths / interpreters could get icky. All the best, Michael > Cheers, > > Mark -- http://www.voidspace.org.uk/ May you do good and not evil May you find forgiveness for yourself and forgive others May you share freely, never taking more than you give. -- the sqlite blessing http://www.sqlite.org/different.html
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