On 14 November 2017 at 10:02, Nathaniel Smith <n...@pobox.com> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 12:56 AM, Paul Moore <p.f.mo...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 14 November 2017 at 03:08, Nathaniel Smith <n...@pobox.com> wrote: >>> On Nov 13, 2017 6:47 PM, "Nick Coghlan" <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>> and a pip.bat with the equivalent contents on Windows? >>>> (Bonus: maybe this would fix the problem with upgrading pip on >>>> Windows?) >>> >>> Depending on how the batch file was written, I think the answer to >>> that is "maybe": >>> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2888976/how-to-make-bat-file-delete-it-self-after-completion/20333152#20333152 >>> >>> >>> Sigh. >> >> Batch files are not suitable for this task. The wrappers have to be >> executables. See >> http://paul-moores-notes.readthedocs.io/en/latest/wrappers.html for a >> detailed analysis I did some time ago. > > Ah, interesting. My reason for suggesting it in the first place > because I was hoping to avoid paying the process spawn overhead twice, > but it sounds like this specific trick is misguided all around :-).
It doesn't even save the process overhead if you're running Powershell as your main shell, or running pip from a terminal window in your editor/IDE, ... I really wish Windows *did* provide a usable "shell script" implementation (of any form) but sadly it simply doesn't. Paul _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
