Hi, Jeff,
Von: Jeff Hardy [mailto:[email protected]]
> On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 1:11 AM, Markus Schaber
> wrote:
> > Hmm, maybe we could put the host/embedder info I suggested in the other
> mail there.
>
> Yeah, and things like which which CLR version (3.5, 4.0), implementation
> (MS, Mono), subs
Thank you so much!!
Best regards!
Mello
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 7:21 PM, Jeff Hardy wrote:
> On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 12:34 PM, Cesar Mello wrote:
> > But if I install the MSI instead, how can I reference the standard
> library
> > that is installed with IronPython? Where should I get the standar
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 12:34 PM, Cesar Mello wrote:
> But if I install the MSI instead, how can I reference the standard library
> that is installed with IronPython? Where should I get the standard library
> path? I tried to get the path from Assembly.GetAssembly(typeof(Python)), but
> the GAC pat
Thanks!
I am evaluating both options.
Installing our own version including the standard library copied from
IronPython (./Lib, ./DLLs) in our application directory seem to work great!
But if I install the MSI instead, how can I reference the standard library
that is installed with IronPython? Wh
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 10:08 AM, Jeff Hardy wrote:
> On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 8:54 AM, Eric Snow wrote:
>> A plain dict would be certainly be easier to implement, just using the
>> builtin. Exposing an immutable dict type in CPython could open a can
>> of worms, but if it makes sense we could cons
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 8:54 AM, Eric Snow wrote:
> A plain dict would be certainly be easier to implement, just using the
> builtin. Exposing an immutable dict type in CPython could open a can
> of worms, but if it makes sense we could consider it.
If it's going to be harder for CPython, then I
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 9:30 AM, Jeff Hardy wrote:
> On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 7:53 AM, Eric Snow wrote:
>> Good to know. Is your preference for a named tuple instead of a
>> normal class? I'd rather not expose sys.implementation as a sequence
>> type, but mostly I want to end up with something tha
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 7:41 AM, Cesar Mello wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've noticed IronRuby has merge modules available. Would this be the
> recommended way to redistribute IronPython?
>
> Now I need to embed IronPython in our product's installer. (This is still a
> prototype). Any advices about this? Prob
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 1:11 AM, Markus Schaber
wrote:
> Hmm, maybe we could put the host/embedder info I suggested in the other mail
> there.
Yeah, and things like which which CLR version (3.5, 4.0),
implementation (MS, Mono), subset (Silverlight, MonoTouch, MonoDroid),
what host it's running un
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 7:53 AM, Eric Snow wrote:
>> I'd strongly prefer the named-tuple approach, like version_info. The
>> metadata attribute being a dict is fine (although the PEP doesn't
>> actually call that out in "Required Values" section; I had to search
>> to find out if it was actually a
On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Jeff Hardy wrote:
> The
> metadata attribute being a dict is fine (although the PEP doesn't
> actually call that out in "Required Values" section; I had to search
> to find out if it was actually a dict).
Thanks for pointing that out. I had certainly intended on s
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 2:11 AM, Markus Schaber
wrote:
> Hi, Jeff,
>
>> Von: Jeff Hardy
>> > Any feedback would be very helpful, particularly with regard to the
>> > decision on the type of sys.implementation and the constraints on
>> > sys.implementation.version. Thanks.
>>
>> I'd strongly prefer
On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Jeff Hardy wrote:
> On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 12:05 PM, Eric Snow
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm looking for feedback on PEP 421: "Adding sys.implementation". The
>> idea came up in 2009 and garnered positive feedback, but didn't go
>> anywhere. I've revived it and am h
A colleague of mine also suggested implementing a stand-alone
redistributable, to embed in our product's bootstrapper. That seems to be
an easier trend in our installers. What do you think?
Thanks a lot for the attention.
Best regards
Mello
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 11:41 AM, Cesar Mello wrote:
>
Hi,
I've noticed IronRuby has merge modules available. Would this be the
recommended way to redistribute IronPython?
Now I need to embed IronPython in our product's installer. (This is still a
prototype). Any advices about this? Probably that's an effort that can be
shared, so instead of developi
Hi, Jeff,
> Von: Jeff Hardy
> > Any feedback would be very helpful, particularly with regard to the
> > decision on the type of sys.implementation and the constraints on
> > sys.implementation.version. Thanks.
>
> I'd strongly prefer the named-tuple approach, like version_info. The
> metadata at
Hi, Eric,
> Von Eric Snow
> I'm looking for feedback on PEP 421: "Adding sys.implementation". The
> idea came up in 2009 and garnered positive feedback, but didn't go
> anywhere. I've revived it and am hoping to get it worked out in time for
> Python 3.3.
>
> Any feedback would be very helpful
Hi ironpython,
Here's your Daily Digest of new issues for project "IronPython".
In today's digest:ISSUES
1. [New comment] Duplicate key in dict
--
ISSUES
1. [New comment] Duplicate key in dict
http://ironpython.codeplex.com/workitem/32527
User Keith
18 matches
Mail list logo
