On Aug 4, 2017, at 09:22, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Where the idea of a "try to compile it as Py3 to see if that works, > but report an error anyway" script then comes in is as a potentially > better failure UX than the default "interpreter not found" from the > operating system's shebang processing.
This makes me uncomfortable, because I think there will be cases, especially with smaller, one-off scripts, where compilation succeeds but where the code still has subtle failure modes at run time. And for larger applications, doing a pre-compile isn’t going to help start up time. Plus, you have to disable pyc generation or ensure that if the compilation fails, all the artifacts of that are cleaned up. It seems like a lot of complexity with plenty of opportunities for failure and false matches. The Zen of Python just begs to be quoted. :) Maybe muxing won’t be a useful technique in practice, but in that case I think a short term “no /usr/bin/python” is a better transition step. I agree that we should be actively recommending Python 2-only scripts be shebanged to /usr/bin/python2. When Python 2.7 is EOL’d, one distro release without /usr/bin/python would be a pretty clear indication that you need to fix your scripts, but PEP 394 should give distros the leeway to choose their own timing on that. Cheers, -Barry
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ Linux-sig mailing list Linux-sig@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-sig
