On 12 February 2015 at 16:42, Steve Dower <steve.do...@microsoft.com> wrote: > None of my installer changes so far have had a PEP, and only a few people > have complained about that :) (it does have more documentation than I've ever > written for an installer before though)
:-) You shouldn't bet on my judgement of what needs a PEP, I usually get it wrong... > IIRC, there was a PEP for executing ZIP files directly (2.6-era?), which I > believe are the purpose of those extensions. If "py.exe spam.pyz" already > works, I don't see any need for a PEP to add the association in the installer. Yes, "py spam.pyz" works fine. +1 on having the associations. Actually, I've just remembered, it's already in PEP 441, which hasn't been approved but which goes further and includes a stdlib tool to create pyz files. I'm not sure if that changes things at all... Paul _______________________________________________ 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
