Danny Milosavljevic <dan...@scratchpost.org> writes:

> On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 17:52:41 +0100
> Mathieu Lirzin <m...@gnu.org> wrote:
>> I think it would work better if when installing python@3, a ‘python’
>> executable would be available in the PATH.  Maybe there is a technical
>> reason for not doing so, but I find its absence rather confusing.
> For backward compatibility, the 'python' executable always has to be Python 2.
> A lot of old scripts specify just "/usr/bin/env python" in the shebang.
> On the other hand if your script supports Python 3 you know it.

Hum, then I don't understand why we aren't applying this argument to
every interperter (Perl, Guile, ...) which introduce backward
incompatible changes?

Mathieu Lirzin
GPG: F2A3 8D7E EB2B 6640 5761  070D 0ADE E100 9460 4D37

Reply via email to