On 3 August 2017 at 00:41, Petr Viktorin <encu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 08/02/2017 04:29 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: >> While I'm happy I at least brought it up, I still can't convince >> myself to actually *like* this idea relative to the "compile it and >> report on the results" approach combined with the ability to opt-in to >> replacing that default script with a symlink to the desired version. > > Just compiling won't work -- consider `import pathlib` for example.
I'm aiming to separate "definitely won't work" (i.e. won't even complile) from "might work" (i.e. there are other reasons things can fail at runtime) > This is UX, but for sysadmins (and other command-line users). Rather than > trying to do what they mean, we should aim to synchronize their expectations > and the reality. > I'd rather have /usr/bin/python failing hard with a good error message than > trying non-obvious heuristics. Avoid the temptation to guess. Exactly. However, *compiling* is something we can do quickly *before* reporting that error message. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Linux-sig mailing list Linux-sig@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-sig
