On 21 March 2011 01:54, Mark Hammond <mhamm...@skippinet.com.au> wrote: > ie, let's say we are forced to choose between the following 3 options: > > * No launcher at all (the status-quo), causing demonstrable breakage in > Windows file associations whenever Python 2.x and Python 3.x scripts exist > on the same box. > > * An in-process launcher which caused breakage in a number of reasonably > common scenarios for Python programmers, and such breakage could easily be > demonstrated. > > * An out-of-process launcher which caused breakage for the hypothetical > program mentioned above, of which no instance can be found and no breakage > actually demonstrated. > > I personally would conclude that the last option is the least worst scenario > by a wide margin.
I haven't had time to read the PEP yet, so my apologies if this is made explicit there, but is the launcher expected to be solely for implementing file associations? I thought there had been discussions of using it to start the interactive interpreter, and for it having command line arguments (implying direct command line usage). If it can be used directly, there are many other scenarios that might be impacted. Consider a service implemented using SRVANY which uses the launcher. Stopping the service kills the launcher, leaving Python (and the script, ie the service) running... Paul. _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
