Re: [Python-Dev] Python launcher command line usage (Was: 3.2.1 encoding surprise)
On 22/07/2011 02:30, Vlad Riscutia wrote: If versioned filenames are added in addition to python.exe, it still might look confusing for most users: Why do I have python and python3.2 executables? What's the difference? I'd rather go with -v argument either way, for people that /know/ they want to call Python 3.2 instead of Python 3.1... It doesn't seem to be too confusing for Linux / Mac OS X users where you have both. What's more it's very useful. I still like being able to specify version from the launcher, it's probably what I will use it most for (on the rare occasions I still use Windows). Michael Thank you, Vlad On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 6:07 PM, Éric Araujo mer...@netwok.org mailto:mer...@netwok.org wrote: Hi, Le 22/07/2011 03:03, Vlad Riscutia a écrit : I'm kind of -1 on changing Python executable name. It would make sense for different major versions, where there are known incompatibilities, so python2-python3 would make sense but python31 python32 not that much... If my team is using Python and it gets pre-installed with other dev-tools, do I need to let everyone know they must call python*31*? And if we upgrade, make sure everyone knows they should now call python*32*? What if we have scripts that call python? Make sure we update all of them whenever minor version is changed? If I understand correctly, adding versioned filenames like python3.3.exe would happen in addition of python.exe, not in replacement. Regards ___ 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/fuzzyman%40voidspace.org.uk -- http://www.voidspace.org.uk/ May you do good and not evil May you find forgiveness for yourself and forgive others May you share freely, never taking more than you give. -- the sqlite blessing http://www.sqlite.org/different.html ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] Python launcher command line usage (Was: 3.2.1 encoding surprise)
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 20:30, Vlad Riscutia riscutiav...@gmail.com wrote: If versioned filenames are added in addition to python.exe, it still might look confusing for most users: Why do I have python and python3.2 executables? What's the difference? I'd rather go with -v argument either way, for people that *know* they want to call Python 3.2 instead of Python 3.1... Thank you, Vlad Honestly, would it really be that confusing? Seeing python32.exe inside C:\Python32 shouldn't be a huge surprise, and ActiveState has been doing something like this for years (forever?). Versioned executables in addition to the standard python.exe is something I've wanted for a while, but that's outside of this PEP. This way you could have C:\Python27 and C:\Python32 on your path and explicitly open up the right one. ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] Python launcher command line usage (Was: 3.2.1 encoding surprise)
OK then. I don't have a *strong* opinion against it, just thought that most people have one version of Python, maybe 2 versions as in 2.x and 3.x, so I would understand python2.exe, python3.exe but yeah, it's not that big of a deal either way. Thank you, Vlad On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 6:41 AM, Brian Curtin brian.cur...@gmail.comwrote: On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 20:30, Vlad Riscutia riscutiav...@gmail.comwrote: If versioned filenames are added in addition to python.exe, it still might look confusing for most users: Why do I have python and python3.2 executables? What's the difference? I'd rather go with -v argument either way, for people that *know* they want to call Python 3.2 instead of Python 3.1... Thank you, Vlad Honestly, would it really be that confusing? Seeing python32.exe inside C:\Python32 shouldn't be a huge surprise, and ActiveState has been doing something like this for years (forever?). Versioned executables in addition to the standard python.exe is something I've wanted for a while, but that's outside of this PEP. This way you could have C:\Python27 and C:\Python32 on your path and explicitly open up the right one. ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] Python launcher command line usage (Was: 3.2.1 encoding surprise)
On 7/20/2011 7:55 PM, Mark Hammond wrote: On 21/07/2011 4:38 AM, Terry Reedy wrote: Many installers first make an organization directory and then an app directory within that. This annoys me sometimes when they only have one app to ever install, but is useful when there might really be multiple directories, as in our case. (Ditto for start menu entries.) This is what python should have done a decade ago. I disagree. If we followed that advice we would also be in \Program Files. That is not what I suggested. I said let the use pick. I have no problem with multiple Python versions installed directly off the root, especially given most users probably have a very small number of such installations. I think Python being a developer tool rather than a user app is a reasonable justification for that (and the justification used when the existing scheme was decided) I put the multiple installations and several other directories into /programs. On my next machine, on order, I will use /devel. The two proposals overlap but are not mutually exclusive. For future pythons, 'python33' is easier to remember and type than 'py -v 3.3' or whatever the proposed encantation is. 'py -3.3' - less chars to type than 'python33' and with no need to have every Python directory on your PATH. My proposal, as I clearly said, was for EXACTLY ONE directory to be added to PATH. In spite of Microsoft making is damned difficult for users to edit PATH, (and deleted programs not deleting their entries) I added 'C:/programs;'. I copied python32/python as py32 and python27/python as py27. Those are even fewer characters to type (4 versus 7). Now I can click a 'Command Prompt' icon and enter 'py32 -m test.regrtest' and it works without cd-ing to /programs/python32. Of course, I will have to re-copy with every install, which is why I would like something like this as part of installs. IMO it is also simple enough that people will remember it fairly easily. py32 is even easier to remember. Also, the launcher supports the ability to select either the 32 or 64bit implementation - so maybe 'python33.exe' isn't really good enough and should reflect the bittedness? Like py32-6? If I install both Pythons on my new 64 bit machine, I will think about it, though I have no need for both now. A python directory also gives a sensible (though optional) place to put other interpreters and even python-based apps. The launcher does not. What other interpreters? IMO it doesn't make sense to have IronPython, jython etc be installed there. Ditto for apps - especially given most apps tend to be tied to a subset of all possible Python versions. If I install pypy, /programs is exactly where I would put it until I somehow discovered that to be a problem. Its startup could be copied as pp26 or something. My idea may be not so good for general use, even though is now solves my problems, but please criticize what I said, allowing for obvious modifications like py32 instead of python32, and not a strawman that is wildly different. -- Terry Jan Reedy ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] Python launcher command line usage (Was: 3.2.1 encoding surprise)
I'm kind of -1 on changing Python executable name. It would make sense for different major versions, where there are known incompatibilities, so python2-python3 would make sense but python31 python32 not that much... If my team is using Python and it gets pre-installed with other dev-tools, do I need to let everyone know they must call python*31*? And if we upgrade, make sure everyone knows they should now call python*32*? What if we have scripts that call python? Make sure we update all of them whenever minor version is changed? The way I look at it, most people have only one version of Python installed at one time and it's just extra burden to make them remember major+minor version number they have. If you actually install multiple versions, you do that for a reason and, since you know what you're doing, you would rather remember to pass correct -v argument to py than users who *just want to use Python*. Thank you, Vlad On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 12:42 PM, Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu wrote: On 7/20/2011 7:55 PM, Mark Hammond wrote: On 21/07/2011 4:38 AM, Terry Reedy wrote: Many installers first make an organization directory and then an app directory within that. This annoys me sometimes when they only have one app to ever install, but is useful when there might really be multiple directories, as in our case. (Ditto for start menu entries.) This is what python should have done a decade ago. I disagree. If we followed that advice we would also be in \Program Files. That is not what I suggested. I said let the use pick. I have no problem with multiple Python versions installed directly off the root, especially given most users probably have a very small number of such installations. I think Python being a developer tool rather than a user app is a reasonable justification for that (and the justification used when the existing scheme was decided) I put the multiple installations and several other directories into /programs. On my next machine, on order, I will use /devel. The two proposals overlap but are not mutually exclusive. For future pythons, 'python33' is easier to remember and type than 'py -v 3.3' or whatever the proposed encantation is. 'py -3.3' - less chars to type than 'python33' and with no need to have every Python directory on your PATH. My proposal, as I clearly said, was for EXACTLY ONE directory to be added to PATH. In spite of Microsoft making is damned difficult for users to edit PATH, (and deleted programs not deleting their entries) I added 'C:/programs;'. I copied python32/python as py32 and python27/python as py27. Those are even fewer characters to type (4 versus 7). Now I can click a 'Command Prompt' icon and enter 'py32 -m test.regrtest' and it works without cd-ing to /programs/python32. Of course, I will have to re-copy with every install, which is why I would like something like this as part of installs. IMO it is also simple enough that people will remember it fairly easily. py32 is even easier to remember. Also, the launcher supports the ability to select either the 32 or 64bit implementation - so maybe 'python33.exe' isn't really good enough and should reflect the bittedness? Like py32-6? If I install both Pythons on my new 64 bit machine, I will think about it, though I have no need for both now. A python directory also gives a sensible (though optional) place to put other interpreters and even python-based apps. The launcher does not. What other interpreters? IMO it doesn't make sense to have IronPython, jython etc be installed there. Ditto for apps - especially given most apps tend to be tied to a subset of all possible Python versions. If I install pypy, /programs is exactly where I would put it until I somehow discovered that to be a problem. Its startup could be copied as pp26 or something. My idea may be not so good for general use, even though is now solves my problems, but please criticize what I said, allowing for obvious modifications like py32 instead of python32, and not a strawman that is wildly different. -- Terry Jan Reedy __**_ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/**mailman/listinfo/python-devhttp://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/**mailman/options/python-dev/** riscutiavlad%40gmail.comhttp://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/riscutiavlad%40gmail.com ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] Python launcher command line usage (Was: 3.2.1 encoding surprise)
Hi, Le 22/07/2011 03:03, Vlad Riscutia a écrit : I'm kind of -1 on changing Python executable name. It would make sense for different major versions, where there are known incompatibilities, so python2-python3 would make sense but python31 python32 not that much... If my team is using Python and it gets pre-installed with other dev-tools, do I need to let everyone know they must call python*31*? And if we upgrade, make sure everyone knows they should now call python*32*? What if we have scripts that call python? Make sure we update all of them whenever minor version is changed? If I understand correctly, adding versioned filenames like python3.3.exe would happen in addition of python.exe, not in replacement. Regards ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] Python launcher command line usage (Was: 3.2.1 encoding surprise)
If versioned filenames are added in addition to python.exe, it still might look confusing for most users: Why do I have python and python3.2 executables? What's the difference? I'd rather go with -v argument either way, for people that *know* they want to call Python 3.2 instead of Python 3.1... Thank you, Vlad On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 6:07 PM, Éric Araujo mer...@netwok.org wrote: Hi, Le 22/07/2011 03:03, Vlad Riscutia a écrit : I'm kind of -1 on changing Python executable name. It would make sense for different major versions, where there are known incompatibilities, so python2-python3 would make sense but python31 python32 not that much... If my team is using Python and it gets pre-installed with other dev-tools, do I need to let everyone know they must call python*31*? And if we upgrade, make sure everyone knows they should now call python*32*? What if we have scripts that call python? Make sure we update all of them whenever minor version is changed? If I understand correctly, adding versioned filenames like python3.3.exe would happen in addition of python.exe, not in replacement. Regards ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] Python launcher command line usage (Was: 3.2.1 encoding surprise)
On 20 July 2011 03:21, Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu wrote: Suppose for Windows there were one '.../python' directory wherever the user first asks it to be put and that all pythons, not just cpython, are installed in directories below that and that the small startup file is copied into or linked from the python directory. Then the one python directory could be put on the path and left there and never removed by any python de-installer (unless perhaps it check that there are no subdirs and *asks* the user. Hmm. Suppose that directory was C:\Program Files\Python Launcher (or C:\Windows\system32 if you don't want to add an extra directory to PATH). And suppose that instead of having a startup file per Python installation you have a single file called py.exe. Then you have the launcher! Plus, the launcher has its own uninstaller, making it a normal part of the Windows environment, rather than being a directory created by something which doesn't get uninstalled. Plus, the launcher has a means of dealing with the generic python, python2 and python3 commands, which your proposal doesn't. Plus, the launcher deals with existing versions of Python, which your proposal doesn't (except by manual intervention). But yes, the idea is sound, which is why it's so similar to what Vinay did with the launcher IMO. 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
Re: [Python-Dev] Python launcher command line usage (Was: 3.2.1 encoding surprise)
On 7/20/2011 3:22 AM, Paul Moore wrote: On 20 July 2011 03:21, Terry Reedytjre...@udel.edu wrote: Suppose for Windows there were one '.../python' directory wherever the user first asks it to be put and that all pythons, not just cpython, are installed in directories below that and that the small startup file is copied into or linked from the python directory. Then the one python directory could be put on the path and left there and never removed by any python de-installer (unless perhaps it check that there are no subdirs and *asks* the user. Hmm. Suppose that directory was C:\Program Files\Python Launcher (or C:\Windows\system32 if you don't want to add an extra directory to PATH). And suppose that instead of having a startup file per Python installation you have a single file called py.exe. Then you have the launcher! Plus, the launcher has its own uninstaller, making it a normal part of the Windows environment, rather than being a directory created by something which doesn't get uninstalled. Plus, the launcher has a means of dealing with the generic python, python2 and python3 commands, which your proposal doesn't. Plus, the launcher deals with existing versions of Python, which your proposal doesn't (except by manual intervention). But yes, the idea is sound, which is why it's so similar to what Vinay did with the launcher IMO. Many installers first make an organization directory and then an app directory within that. This annoys me sometimes when they only have one app to ever install, but is useful when there might really be multiple directories, as in our case. (Ditto for start menu entries.) This is what python should have done a decade ago. Now is not too late. The launcher has to be in a directory somewhere on the path. That directory could just as well be 'our' directory. The two proposals overlap but are not mutually exclusive. For future pythons, 'python33' is easier to remember and type than 'py -v 3.3' or whatever the proposed encantation is. A python directory also gives a sensible (though optional) place to put other interpreters and even python-based apps. The launcher does not. -- Terry Jan Reedy ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] Python launcher command line usage (Was: 3.2.1 encoding surprise)
On 21/07/2011 4:38 AM, Terry Reedy wrote: Many installers first make an organization directory and then an app directory within that. This annoys me sometimes when they only have one app to ever install, but is useful when there might really be multiple directories, as in our case. (Ditto for start menu entries.) This is what python should have done a decade ago. I disagree. If we followed that advice we would also be in \Program Files. I have no problem with multiple Python versions installed directly off the root, especially given most users probably have a very small number of such installations. I think Python being a developer tool rather than a user app is a reasonable justification for that (and the justification used when the existing scheme was decided) The two proposals overlap but are not mutually exclusive. For future pythons, 'python33' is easier to remember and type than 'py -v 3.3' or whatever the proposed encantation is. 'py -3.3' - less chars to type than 'python33' and with no need to have every Python directory on your PATH. IMO it is also simple enough that people will remember it fairly easily. Also, the launcher supports the ability to select either the 32 or 64bit implementation - so maybe 'python33.exe' isn't really good enough and should reflect the bittedness? A python directory also gives a sensible (though optional) place to put other interpreters and even python-based apps. The launcher does not. What other interpreters? IMO it doesn't make sense to have IronPython, jython etc be installed there. Ditto for apps - especially given most apps tend to be tied to a subset of all possible Python versions. Mark ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] Python launcher command line usage (Was: 3.2.1 encoding surprise)
On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 09:55:28 +1000 Mark Hammond skippy.hamm...@gmail.com wrote: The two proposals overlap but are not mutually exclusive. For future pythons, 'python33' is easier to remember and type than 'py -v 3.3' or whatever the proposed encantation is. 'py -3.3' - less chars to type than 'python33' and with no need to have every Python directory on your PATH. IMO it is also simple enough that people will remember it fairly easily. Given that Python 2.x has a -3 option, isn't py -3.3 kind of confusing, at least to the eye? Regards Antoine. ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] Python launcher command line usage (Was: 3.2.1 encoding surprise)
On 21/07/2011 10:08 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 09:55:28 +1000 Mark Hammondskippy.hamm...@gmail.com wrote: The two proposals overlap but are not mutually exclusive. For future pythons, 'python33' is easier to remember and type than 'py -v 3.3' or whatever the proposed encantation is. 'py -3.3' - less chars to type than 'python33' and with no need to have every Python directory on your PATH. IMO it is also simple enough that people will remember it fairly easily. Given that Python 2.x has a -3 option, isn't py -3.3 kind of confusing, at least to the eye? A little, yeah, but IMO practicality beats purity here. I'd probably feel different if I felt 'python -3' was regularly used and would continue to be so in the future. Also, I think most people who would potentially use 'python -3' will be aware that running 'py' is a totally different command and will adjust accordingly (either by continuing to use 'python -3' or adjusting to running 'py -2 -3'.) The PEP does make explicit mention of this... Cheers, Mark ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] Python launcher command line usage (Was: 3.2.1 encoding surprise)
On Tue, 19 Jul 2011 16:00:57 +0100 Paul Moore p.f.mo...@gmail.com wrote: On 19 July 2011 02:41, Vinay Sajip vinay_sa...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: The use of py from the command line is merely a convenience for developers (as the PEP says) - it's better to rely on shebang lines together with settings in the .ini to get the behaviour you want. But it's a *huge* convenience for running multiple Python versions, particularly as no existing Python versions install executables with the version in the name (python3.exe, python3.2.exe, etc). Perhaps this could be changed? As far as I can see, python.exe is a small executable around ~25KB (all the code being in the DLL), so there doesn't seem to be any harm to make a copy of it named either pythonXY.exe or pythonX.Y.exe. Regards Antoine. ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] Python launcher command line usage (Was: 3.2.1 encoding surprise)
On 19 July 2011 16:16, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote: On Tue, 19 Jul 2011 16:00:57 +0100 Paul Moore p.f.mo...@gmail.com wrote: On 19 July 2011 02:41, Vinay Sajip vinay_sa...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: The use of py from the command line is merely a convenience for developers (as the PEP says) - it's better to rely on shebang lines together with settings in the .ini to get the behaviour you want. But it's a *huge* convenience for running multiple Python versions, particularly as no existing Python versions install executables with the version in the name (python3.exe, python3.2.exe, etc). Perhaps this could be changed? As far as I can see, python.exe is a small executable around ~25KB (all the code being in the DLL), so there doesn't seem to be any harm to make a copy of it named either pythonXY.exe or pythonX.Y.exe. I'm sure it could (and in fact, I thought that this had been discussed some time back and it may even be already happening in 3.3) but it doesn't help for existing versions, where the py.exe launcher does. So as a longer-term solution, supplying pythonXY.exe binaries may be useful (depending on how PEP 397 progresses), but the benefits won't be for quite some time. (And there's still the question of what gets put on PATH by default even if version-specific binaries exist). It's a topic worthy of discussion, but I suspect that in actual fact, PEP 397 may offer a more complete solution to the various Windows installation niggles. Two questions: 1. What level of support is there for PEP 397? If it's unlikely to get accepted, there's little point in basing a solution on it. 2. Would it be worth extending the goals of the PEP to make simplifying command line usage an explicit goal? Or is it better to keep PEP 397 focused on one thing and have a separate PEP covering such further extensions to the PEP 397 launcher? 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
Re: [Python-Dev] Python launcher command line usage (Was: 3.2.1 encoding surprise)
On Tue, 19 Jul 2011 17:21:30 +0100 Paul Moore p.f.mo...@gmail.com wrote: Two questions: 1. What level of support is there for PEP 397? If it's unlikely to get accepted, there's little point in basing a solution on it. It only needs support from our Windows users or developers. It is doubtful than any Linux or OS X user would oppose it on purely platonic grounds. I myself, as a casual Windows user, understand that the current situation is not optimal and believe that any improvement is welcome. Practically, if Mark Hammond is satisfied with his own proposal, if Martin doesn't oppose it, and if other users like you say it's a good step forward, then I don't see any reason for it *not* to be accepted. (if you want an explicit +1, here it is :-)) 2. Would it be worth extending the goals of the PEP to make simplifying command line usage an explicit goal? Or is it better to keep PEP 397 focused on one thing and have a separate PEP covering such further extensions to the PEP 397 launcher? I have no opinion about that. Regards Antoine. ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] Python launcher command line usage (Was: 3.2.1 encoding surprise)
On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 6:59 AM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote: (if you want an explicit +1, here it is :-)) FWIW, +1 from me as well, but keep in mind that I actively avoid programming on Windows (although I'm happy enough using it as a gaming platform) Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] Python launcher command line usage (Was: 3.2.1 encoding surprise)
On 20/07/2011 1:00 AM, Paul Moore wrote: On 19 July 2011 02:41, Vinay Sajipvinay_sa...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: The use of py from the command line is merely a convenience for developers (as the PEP says) - it's better to rely on shebang lines together with settings in the .ini to get the behaviour you want. But it's a *huge* convenience for running multiple Python versions, particularly as no existing Python versions install executables with the version in the name (python3.exe, python3.2.exe, etc).And BAT files aren't a suitable option (I'll rant about the issues with BAT files if you want, but I recommend you don't ask :-)) Being able to say py -3, py -2.7, etc, rather than having to hack PATH, create renamed copies of exes, etc, is arguably more of a benefit to me than shebang support. Ditto for me. This may explain why I'd like to see a command-line means of invoking custom commands. Something like py.exe looking at an initial argument, and if it's of the form -cmd for a command in py.ini, then run that command, passing remaining arguments just as for py -3. (Maybe --cmd to match standard long option usage would be better?) Presumably, if this idea is to go anywhere, it would need adding to the PEP. Mark, do you think it would be useful? I doubt I will find it useful - but I'm on record as saying I wont find the custom command support itself useful :) But similarly with that support, evidence that enough people *will* find it useful is enough for me to support the concept. My current thinking re the PEP is to make it much smaller - just describe the concepts and try to avoid as much implementation detail as possible - I see no reason the PEP needs to take a stance on issues like that - this feature really could be treated just like any other feature request in Python - a loose consensus and acceptable patch is all that is needed. Mark ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] Python launcher command line usage (Was: 3.2.1 encoding surprise)
On 7/19/2011 12:21 PM, Paul Moore wrote: On 19 July 2011 16:16, Antoine Pitrousolip...@pitrou.net wrote: On Tue, 19 Jul 2011 16:00:57 +0100 Perhaps this could be changed? As far as I can see, python.exe is a small executable around ~25KB (all the code being in the DLL), so there doesn't seem to be any harm to make a copy of it named either pythonXY.exe or pythonX.Y.exe. I'm sure it could (and in fact, I thought that this had been discussed some time back and it may even be already happening in 3.3) but it doesn't help for existing versions, where the py.exe launcher does. So as a longer-term solution, supplying pythonXY.exe binaries may be useful (depending on how PEP 397 progresses), but the benefits won't be for quite some time. (And there's still the question of what gets put on PATH by default even if version-specific binaries exist). Suppose for Windows there were one '.../python' directory wherever the user first asks it to be put and that all pythons, not just cpython, are installed in directories below that and that the small startup file is copied into or linked from the python directory. Then the one python directory could be put on the path and left there and never removed by any python de-installer (unless perhaps it check that there are no subdirs and *asks* the user. -- Terry Jan Reedy ___ 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
