On Aug 12, 2011, at 01:10 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
1. Accept the reality of that situation, and propose a mechanism that
minimises the impact of the resulting ambiguity on end users of Python
by allowing developers to be explicit about their target language.
This is the approach advocated in PEP
On Fri, 12 Aug 2011 12:19:23 -0400, Barry Warsaw ba...@python.org wrote:
On Aug 12, 2011, at 01:10 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
1. Accept the reality of that situation, and propose a mechanism that
minimises the impact of the resulting ambiguity on end users of Python
by allowing developers to be
On Aug 12, 2011, at 01:34 PM, R. David Murray wrote:
True, but I think that is orthogonal to the purposes of the PEP, which
is about supporting writing of system independent scripts that are *not*
provided by the distribution (or installed via packaging). And PEP 397
aims to extend that to
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 12:19:23PM -0400, Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Aug 12, 2011, at 01:10 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
1. Accept the reality of that situation, and propose a mechanism that
minimises the impact of the resulting ambiguity on end users of Python
by allowing developers to be explicit
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 6:05 PM, Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu wrote:
There was no comparable transition. Python 2.0 was basically 1.6 renamed for
a different distributor.
No that's not true. If you compare the what's new sections there is
quite a large difference between 1.6 and 2.0, despite
Hi,
I’ve read the latest version of this PEP, as updated by Nick Coghlan in
the Mercurial repo on July, 20th. Excuse me if I repeat old arguments,
I did not reread all the threads.
In summary, I don’t think the PEP is useful right now, nor that it will
set a good practice for the future.
*
I think you missed the point of the PEP. The point is to create a new,
python-dev-blessed standard that the distros will follow. The primary
goal is so that a script can specify python2 or python3 in the #!
line and expect that to work on all compliant linux systems, which we
hope will be all of
Hi Devid,
I think you missed the point of the PEP. The point is to create a new,
python-dev-blessed standard that the distros will follow. The primary
goal is so that a script can specify python2 or python3 in the #!
line and expect that to work on all compliant linux systems, which we
On Thu, 11 Aug 2011 17:12:22 +0200, =?UTF-8?B?w4lyaWMgQXJhdWpv?=
mer...@netwok.org wrote:
Iâm sorry if my opinion on that main point was lost among remarks on
details. To rephrase one part of my reply: Right now, the de facto
standard is that shebangs can use python to mean python2 and
On 8/11/2011 10:36 AM, Éric Araujo wrote:
It would be interesting to have feedback from people who lived the
transition to Python 2.
There was no comparable transition. Python 2.0 was basically 1.6 renamed
for a different distributor. I regard Python 2.2, which introduced
new-style, as the
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 1:12 AM, Éric Araujo mer...@netwok.org wrote:
I’m sorry if my opinion on that main point was lost among remarks on
details. To rephrase one part of my reply: Right now, the de facto
standard is that shebangs can use python to mean python2 and python3 to
mean python3.
I'm indifferent either way. python3 is a hard link to python3.2, so I
thought we'd make everything that way for consistency. Higher-level
links (python/idle/pydoc/python-config) have to be soft links so that
if, e.g., python points to python3, and python3 is then pointed to
another location,
Le mardi 26 juillet 2011 à 10:56 -0500, Kerrick Staley a écrit :
I'm indifferent either way. python3 is a hard link to python3.2, so I
thought we'd make everything that way for consistency.
Is it? Yikes, I didn't know about that.
Regards
Antoine.
Le 26/07/2011 18:05, Antoine Pitrou a écrit :
Le mardi 26 juillet 2011 à 10:56 -0500, Kerrick Staley a écrit :
I'm indifferent either way. python3 is a hard link to python3.2, so I
thought we'd make everything that way for consistency.
Is it? Yikes, I didn't know about that.
Yikes for me
In article 4e2ee813.1080...@netwok.org,
Éric Araujo mer...@netwok.org wrote:
Le 26/07/2011 18:05, Antoine Pitrou a écrit :
Le mardi 26 juillet 2011 à 10:56 -0500, Kerrick Staley a écrit :
I'm indifferent either way. python3 is a hard link to python3.2, so I
thought we'd make everything
On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 01:53:09 -0500
Kerrick Staley m...@kerrickstaley.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 3:03 AM, Ned Deily n...@acm.org wrote:
I think adding the requirement to mandate hard link vs soft link usage
is an unnecessary and unwarranted attempt at optimization. For
instance,
On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 23:16:55 +0200
Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
I think the recommendation should be symbolic links for all systems.
Hard links are generally harder to discover, while it is trivial to
find out that a given file is a symbolink link, and to which other file.
The
I put up a tracker issue at http://bugs.python.org/issue12627
There are patches for 2.7 as well as tip, but they only fix the
Makefiles; no changes are done to documentation.
Also, Ned, it appears that Python 2.7 doesn't install the Idle or
PyDoc binaries (grep the 2.7 Makefile to see what I
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 3:03 AM, Ned Deily n...@acm.org wrote:
I think adding the requirement to mandate hard link vs soft link usage
is an unnecessary and unwarranted attempt at optimization. For
instance, IIRC, the OS X installers don't use any hard links: that may
complicate the install,
$ svn diff
Index: pep-0394.txt
===
--- pep-0394.txt(revision 88866)
+++ pep-0394.txt(working copy)
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
PEP: 394
-Title: The python command on Unix-Like Systems
+Title: The python Command on Unix-Like
In article
canawp3zfhpaagdgnuhd4diffja2qmnkf+7wkw7qby_f2vby...@mail.gmail.com,
Kerrick Staley m...@kerrickstaley.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 3:03 AM, Ned Deily n...@acm.org wrote:
I think adding the requirement to mandate hard link vs soft link usage
is an unnecessary and unwarranted
On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 4:53 PM, Kerrick Staley m...@kerrickstaley.com wrote:
Nick, can you please apply the patch (will be sent in the following
email) to the PEP SVN as soon as we get the hard-link issue is figured
out? Alternatively, could you provide me write access to just the
On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 3:28 AM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
Done: http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0394/
Quick question: When I do svn up, it doesn't show any changes. Has
it been switched over to Mercurial recently?
Thanks,
Kerrick Staley
On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Kerrick Staley m...@kerrickstaley.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 3:28 AM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
Done: http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0394/
Quick question: When I do svn up, it doesn't show any changes. Has
it been switched over to
Hi,
These are two emails I sent a short while ago about finalizing PEP
394. There was no response, so in case the messages didn't go through,
I'm resending them.
Thanks,
Kerrick Staley
-- Forwarded message --
From: Kerrick Staley m...@kerrickstaley.com
Date: Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at
In article
CANaWP3zBo8cNWNHN=jxx_m3tubk3k+vn+lygqb+yimdtrzv...@mail.gmail.com,
Kerrick Staley m...@kerrickstaley.com wrote:
Here are my thoughts:
* For Ned's comments, I agree. Although the issue isn't as large with
these programs, there's no reason we can't handle them in the same
way. I
26 matches
Mail list logo
