On 2/13/19 4:46 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Wed, 13 Feb 2019 16:24:48 +0100
Petr Viktorin <encu...@gmail.com> wrote:
PEP 394 says:
> This recommendation will be periodically reviewed over the next few
> years, and updated when the core development team judges it
> appropriate. As a point of reference, regular maintenance releases
> for the Python 2.7 series will continue until at least 2020.
I think it's time for another review.
I'm especially worried about the implication of these:
- If the `python` command is installed, it should invoke the same
version of Python as the `python2` command
- scripts that are deliberately written to be source compatible
with both Python 2.x and 3.x [...] may continue to use `python` on
their shebang line.
So, to support scripts that adhere to the recommendation, Python 2
needs to be installed :(
I think PEP 394 should acknowledge that there are now years of
established usage of `python` as Python 3 for many conda users.
The intention is that Conda environments are treated the same as venv
environments, i.e.:
When a virtual environment (created by the PEP 405 venv package or a
similar tool) is active, the python command should refer to the virtual
environment's interpreter. In other words, activating a virtual
environment counts as deliberate user action to change the default
python interpreter.
Do you think conda should be listed explicitly along with venv?
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
