> > > Why not just define Python 2.8 as Python 2.7 except with a newer compiler? > I cannot see why that would be massive undertaking, if changing compiler > for 2.7 is neccesary anyway. > A reminder that this was brought up a few months ago, as a proposal by the stackless team, as they wanted to use a newer compiler for binaries. IIRC, there was a pretty resounding "don't do that" from this list. Makes sense to me -- we have how many different binaries of 2.7 on how many platforms, with how many compilers? Sure, python.org has been nicely consistent about what compiler (run time, really) they use to distribute Windows binaries, but the python version has NOTHING to do with what compiler is used. (for hat matter there is 32 bit and 64 bit 2.7 on Windows ...) I think, at the time, it was thought that pip, wheel, and the metadata standards should be extended to allow multiple binaries of the same version with different compilers to be in the wild. those projects have had bigger fish to fry, but maybe it's time to get ahead of the game with that, so we can accommodate this change. It's already getting hard to find VS2008 Express, and building 64 bit extensions is s serious pain. -Chris -- Christopher Barker, Ph.D. Oceanographer Emergency Response Division NOAA/NOS/OR&R (206) 526-6959 voice 7600 Sand Point Way NE (206) 526-6329 fax Seattle, WA 98115 (206) 526-6317 main reception Chris.Barker at noaa.gov -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20140606/010c3bf8/attachment.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