Hi, Danny Milosavljevic <[email protected]> writes:
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 17:52:41 +0100 > Mathieu Lirzin <[email protected]> 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
