W dniu czwartek, 19 lipca 2012 06:40:19 UTC+2 użytkownik C Anthony Risinger napisał: > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 4:19 AM, Łukasz Mach <lukasz.m...@pagema.net> > wrote: > > W dniu 12.07.2012 11:17, C Anthony Risinger pisze: > > > > Would it be very bad idea to add site-packages to -I ? (by hand or by > > default)? > > that can cause some rather unexpected things to happen, like importing > the wrong core stdlib modules. im pretty sure the --search-path stuff > is farther down the chain, so it *might* work ok ... it's not as > detrimental as installing pyjs libs to site-packages,
Heh, I'm curious why... why pyjs is done in different way than many other packages. I mean it doesn't use setuptools/distutils, but has it's own "third" way of being installed in system. It would be very handy to let me just do "pip install pyjamas" / "pip install pyjs" > but i still > wouldn't advise it. > Also, I think that I'm thinking against "pyjamas philosophy" (well, you said that there is no pyjs philosophy, but apparently you're wrong), but I think that we should migrate to situation when I can "pip install some_other_library" and that library is usable in pyjs app until it use features not supported by pyjs (eg. native code). Also, is it desired that when I do "import some_external_library", and this library is not reachable by pyjs app, then I don't get compile-time error, not even warning? --
