On 22/02/2012 2:50 AM, Vinay Sajip wrote:
Mark Hammond gmail.com> writes:
think there is something that could be added to those docs - the use of
PATHEXT and the fact that once the shebang line is in place, a
command-prompt could do just "hello.py" rather than needing "py hello.py".
Or even
Mark Hammond gmail.com> writes:
> think there is something that could be added to those docs - the use of
> PATHEXT and the fact that once the shebang line is in place, a
> command-prompt could do just "hello.py" rather than needing "py hello.py".
Or even just "hello" should work.
Regards,
V
On 20/02/2012 23:48, Mark Hammond wrote:
On 21/02/2012 2:54 AM, Mark Lawrence wrote:
The section in the docs "Using Python on Windows" would need to be
updated, but would this have to happen for every current version of
Python?
I'm not sure what docs you are referring to here?
See http://do
On 21/02/2012 2:54 AM, Mark Lawrence wrote:
On 18/02/2012 05:24, Mark Hammond wrote:
...
* Write some user-oriented docs.
The section in the docs "Using Python on Windows" would need to be
updated, but would this have to happen for every current version of Python?
I'm not sure what docs yo
On 18/02/2012 05:24, Mark Hammond wrote:
I'm wondering what thoughts are on PEP 397, the Python launcher for
Windows. I've been using the implementation for a number of months now
and I find it incredibly useful.
To my mind, the specific steps would be:
* Have someone pronounce it as accepted (
On 19 February 2012 03:09, Mark Hammond wrote:
> Thanks for the note Paul, but did you also mean to CC python-dev?
Yes, I did, sorry.
>
> On 18/02/2012 9:15 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
>>
>> On 18 February 2012 05:24, Mark Hammond wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm wondering what thoughts are on PEP 397, the Python
The launcher was slightly controversial when the pep was initially
written 12 months ago.
So what were the objections?
Assuming you are proposing some future action for CPython,
I'm opposed to the notion that the implementation of the
launcher is the specification. The specification needs to
On 2/17/2012 9:24 PM, Mark Hammond wrote:
I've been using the implementation for a number of months now and I
find it incredibly useful.
+1
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscri
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 1:08 PM, Mark Hammond wrote:
> The launcher was slightly controversial when the pep was initially written
> 12 months ago. If you believe the creation of the PEP was procedurally
> incorrect I'm happy to withdraw it - obviously I just want the launcher,
> with or without a
On 18/02/2012 11:08 PM, mar...@v.loewis.de wrote:
Zitat von Mark Hammond :
I'm wondering what thoughts are on PEP 397, the Python launcher for
Windows. I've been using the implementation for a number of months now
and I find it incredibly useful.
I wonder what the rationale for the PEP (as o
Zitat von Mark Hammond :
I'm wondering what thoughts are on PEP 397, the Python launcher for
Windows. I've been using the implementation for a number of months
now and I find it incredibly useful.
I wonder what the rationale for the PEP (as opposed to the rationale
for the launcher) is -
On 18/02/2012 4:37 PM, Brian Curtin wrote:
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 23:24, Mark Hammond wrote:
I'm wondering what thoughts are on PEP 397, the Python launcher for Windows.
I've been using the implementation for a number of months now and I find it
incredibly useful.
To my mind, the specific s
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 23:24, Mark Hammond wrote:
> I'm wondering what thoughts are on PEP 397, the Python launcher for Windows.
> I've been using the implementation for a number of months now and I find it
> incredibly useful.
>
> To my mind, the specific steps would be:
>
> * Arrange for it to
I'm wondering what thoughts are on PEP 397, the Python launcher for
Windows. I've been using the implementation for a number of months now
and I find it incredibly useful.
To my mind, the specific steps would be:
* Have someone pronounce it as accepted (or suggest steps to be taken
before su
14 matches
Mail list logo
