On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 9:33 PM, David Lyon <david.l...@preisshare.net> wrote: > On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 09:36:08 -0400, Fred Drake <fdr...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> If we adopt such a micro-language (I'm reserving judgment until I've >> had more time to read the relevant PEPs carefully), I'd rather see the >> names match what's in the Python runtime more closely, probably only >> avoiding the call syntax. >> .. >> requires: pywin32; if sys.platform == 'win32' >> .. > > I foresee problems with using constants from the python runtime as > they currently stand. Only for the simple reason that the existing > 'constants' were good 5 years ago. But won't be good - next year. > > For example, 'win32' refers to a specific windows because windows > can now be 64 bit. > > Does win32 mean win64? It does now - but it shouldn't. > > I propose windows and 32 and 64 as further qualifiers. So for example, > 'windows' or 'windows-32' or 'windows-64'. Not to mention 'windows-xp-32' > and 'windows-xp-64' and 'windows-ce'. > > Maybe windows-128 is around the corner - who knows.. > > I respect those sys python constants.. but they are too unspecific > to be used here.
No, the architecture is given by platform.machine() so you have it already, by combining a test with sys.platform. > > And for linux, what is 'linux2' ? It should just be linux.. to > make it less confusing. That's how the platform is called, that's not created by Python (it's what uname -s returns) see http://docs.python.org/library/sys.html Tarek. _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
