Neil Hodgson wrote:
> Martin v. Löwis:
>
>> See http://bugs.python.org/issue6926
>>
>> The SDK currently hides symbolic constants from us that people are
>> asking for.
>
>Setting the version to 0x501 (XP) doesn't actively try to stop
> running on version 0x500 (2K), it just reveals the symbo
Neil Hodgson wrote:
There
is the question of whether to force failure on Windows 2000 or just
remove it from the list of known-working platforms while still
allowing it to run.
I'd be grateful if you could refrain from doing anything to
actively break it. Win 2000 was the last version to be fre
Martin v. Löwis:
> See http://bugs.python.org/issue6926
>
> The SDK currently hides symbolic constants from us that people are
> asking for.
Setting the version to 0x501 (XP) doesn't actively try to stop
running on version 0x500 (2K), it just reveals the symbols and APIs
from 0x501. Including
>> If not, I'd like to propose that we phase out that support: the Windows
>> 2.7 installer should display a warning; 3.2 will stop supporting Windows
>> 2000.
>
>Is there any reason for this? I can understand dropping Windows 9x
> due to the lack of Unicode support but is there anything missi
Martin v. Löwis:
> I don't recall whether we have already decided about continued support
> for Windows 2000.
>
> If not, I'd like to propose that we phase out that support: the Windows
> 2.7 installer should display a warning; 3.2 will stop supporting Windows
> 2000.
Is there any reason for t
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 13:40, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
> I don't recall whether we have already decided about continued support
> for Windows 2000.
>
> If not, I'd like to propose that we phase out that support: the Windows
> 2.7 installer should display a warning; 3.2 will stop supporting Window
On Mar 1, 2010, at 4:53 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 1:40 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>> I don't recall whether we have already decided about continued support
>> for Windows 2000.
>>
>> If not, I'd like to propose that we phase out that support: the Windows
>> 2.7 inst
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 1:40 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
> I don't recall whether we have already decided about continued support
> for Windows 2000.
>
> If not, I'd like to propose that we phase out that support: the Windows
> 2.7 installer should display a warning; 3.2 will stop supporting Windo
I don't recall whether we have already decided about continued support
for Windows 2000.
If not, I'd like to propose that we phase out that support: the Windows
2.7 installer should display a warning; 3.2 will stop supporting Windows
2000.
Opinions?
Regards,
Martin
__
