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, Bria
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 20:30, 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 *
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
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...
T
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 P
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 n
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
On 21/07/2011 10:08 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 09:55:28 +1000
Mark Hammond 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.
On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 09:55:28 +1000
Mark Hammond 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 'pyt
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 st
On 7/20/2011 3:22 AM, Paul Moore wrote:
On 20 July 2011 03:21, Terry Reedy 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 i
On 20 July 2011 03:21, Terry Reedy 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 py
On 7/19/2011 12:21 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
On 19 July 2011 16:16, Antoine Pitrou 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
On 20/07/2011 1:00 AM, Paul Moore wrote:
On 19 July 2011 02:41, Vinay Sajip 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 *
On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 6:59 AM, Antoine Pitrou 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...@g
On Tue, 19 Jul 2011 17:21:30 +0100
Paul Moore 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
On 19 July 2011 16:16, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jul 2011 16:00:57 +0100
> Paul Moore wrote:
>
>> On 19 July 2011 02:41, Vinay Sajip 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
On Tue, 19 Jul 2011 16:00:57 +0100
Paul Moore wrote:
> On 19 July 2011 02:41, Vinay Sajip 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
On 19 July 2011 02:41, Vinay Sajip 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
19 matches
Mail list logo
