Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
a) Why does the Python Foundation not provide additionally a binary version, compiled with MinGW or another open-source compiler?
I use a binary version of Python compiled with an open-source compiler on Windows that was provided by someone else.
b) Why does the Python Foundation not ensure, that the python source-code is directly compilable with MinGW?
Why should they? It already runs on Windows with a freely available compiler.
f) Are there any official (Python Foundation) statements / rationales available, which explain why the MinGW compiler is unsupported, although parts of the community obviously like to use it?
Not to my knowledge. But I would guess because supporting it would obviously be a lot of work and the core developers have other things to do they consider more important. They are volunteers, you know.
Why don't you solve this problem and produce a patched version of Python that does what you want.
[google is _not_ a fried here. I like to have a stable development environment, which is supported by the official projects, thus it can pass quality-assurance without beeing afraid about every next release.]
Then you have several options:
a) use a supported development environment b) do the work yourself to support MinGW c) pay someone else to do the work
But don't act like the volunteers who develop Python owe you a version of Python that runs out of the box on MinGW. They don't, anymore than you owe *me* a version of Python that runs out of the box on MinGW.
Now why haven't *you* produced a version of Python that is directly compileable with MinGW? Time's a-wasting. -- Michael Hoffman -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
