Sorry that I dropped the ball on this. I'd still like to see this get
implemented, but I got distracted with school and forgot about it.
Updates I have made to the PEP will be sent as a patch immediately
after this email.
Here's a summary of what was happenening when we left off:
* The draft SVN
$ svn diff
Index: pep-0394.txt
===
--- pep-0394.txt(revision 88860)
+++ 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
On 07/03/2011 21:33, Glenn Linderman wrote:
On 3/7/2011 4:00 PM, Michael Foord wrote:
On 07/03/2011 23:52, Greg Ewing wrote:
Michael Foord wrote:
- I doubt calling it python.exe will fly, but I'm not sure. If
so what will you call what is currently 'python.exe'? - if not then
python
On 3/9/2011 1:27 AM, Mark Hammond wrote:
your position but my personal opinion is that simple support for #! is
more desirable.
I agree. One weird line in a file is enough!
--
Terry Jan Reedy
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
On 9 March 2011 06:27, Mark Hammond mhamm...@skippinet.com.au wrote:
I'm glad solving world hunger is out of scope for this :) I understand your
position but my personal opinion is that simple support for #! is more
desirable. I'd be happy to go with the consensus though...
Just in case you
Calling it python.exe would make the most sense for people who don't
look behind the curtain, but I agree it could potentially be confusing
for people. Further, we would need to ensure we didn't create an
infinite loop where the launcher python.exe found a python.exe it
thought was an appropriate
Am 08.03.2011 01:00, schrieb Michael Foord:
On 07/03/2011 23:52, Greg Ewing wrote:
Michael Foord wrote:
- I doubt calling it python.exe will fly, but I'm not sure. If so
what will you call what is currently 'python.exe'? - if not then
python foo.py on the command line will *still* not work...
Michael Foord wrote:
The launcher program could thrive without *having* to be part of a
standard Python install. Offering it separately makes sense even if it
*is* included. If we do both then users can vote with their feet.
A launcher might be difficult to integrate into the Python installer,
After a little investigation, I think what is currently proposed in the
PEP is fine for OS X and other systems which use the Unix makefile
altinstall and install targets, as far as it goes. However, for
completeness, I think the PEP should also cover (most of) the other
files that are
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 03:33, Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de wrote:
If it's called python.exe, I wonder what it should do when given a
file that doesn't carry version information.
I would expect it to follow the guidance of the Unix PEP as much as
possible. IIRC this means it would launch
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 03:40, Gertjan Klein gkl...@xs4all.nl wrote:
A launcher might be difficult to integrate into the Python installer, as
there can, by definition, only be one. What if I install a new version
of Python and then uninstall it? Will the launcher be uninstalled as
well? Will it
On 3/7/2011 2:18 PM, James Y Knight wrote:
On Mar 7, 2011, at 3:49 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
The launcher could also (as per Mark's suggestion) interpret a shebang
line in the script, so that scripts could specify their required
version without needing a different command,or multiple
On 3/7/2011 9:31 PM, Reliable Domains wrote:
The launcher need not be called python.exe, and maybe it would be
better called #@launcher.exe (or similar, depending on its exact
function details).
I do not know that the '#@' part is about, but pygo would be short and
expressive.
--
Terry Jan
On 3/8/2011 12:02 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 3/7/2011 9:31 PM, Reliable Domains wrote:
The launcher need not be called python.exe, and maybe it would be
better called #@launcher.exe (or similar, depending on its exact
function details).
I do not know that the '#@' part is about, but pygo
On Tue, Mar 08, 2011 at 06:43:19PM -0800, Glenn Linderman wrote:
On 3/8/2011 12:02 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 3/7/2011 9:31 PM, Reliable Domains wrote:
The launcher need not be called python.exe, and maybe it would be
better called #@launcher.exe (or similar, depending
On 3/8/2011 8:02 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Tue, Mar 08, 2011 at 06:43:19PM -0800, Glenn Linderman wrote:
On 3/8/2011 12:02 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 3/7/2011 9:31 PM, Reliable Domains wrote:
The launcher need not be called python.exe, and maybe it would be
better
On 9/03/2011 1:43 PM, Glenn Linderman wrote:
I'm of the opinion that attempting to parse a Unix #! line, and intuit
what would be the equivalent on Windows is unnecessarily complex and
error prone, and assumes that the variant systems are configured using
the same guidelines (which the Python
On 3/8/2011 9:06 PM, Mark Hammond wrote:
On 9/03/2011 1:43 PM, Glenn Linderman wrote:
I'm of the opinion that attempting to parse a Unix #! line, and intuit
what would be the equivalent on Windows is unnecessarily complex and
error prone, and assumes that the variant systems are configured
On 9/03/2011 5:05 PM, Glenn Linderman wrote:
Standard installation paths are accepted by about 99% of the users, so
embedding standard installation paths can work well for that batch of
users. Of course, Windows changes the standard path periodically, so
that it different from versions prior to
On 3/8/2011 10:27 PM, Mark Hammond wrote:
On 9/03/2011 5:05 PM, Glenn Linderman wrote:
Standard installation paths are accepted by about 99% of the users, so
embedding standard installation paths can work well for that batch of
users. Of course, Windows changes the standard path periodically,
On 7 March 2011 01:18, Mark Hammond skippy.hamm...@gmail.com wrote:
That said though, I'm only -0 on python2.exe/python3.exe - I don't think it
will hurt, but also don't think it will help that much in practice. It may
also turn out to be unnecessary should a complete solution be implemented
-
On 7/03/2011 9:33 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
That sounds like a fairly cool idea. So if I follow what you're
suggesting, we'd have a single python.exe, probably installed in
system32, which did the necessary command line juggling and shebang
parsing, then simply redirected to the appropriate Python
On 07/03/2011 10:49, Mark Hammond wrote:
On 7/03/2011 9:33 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
That sounds like a fairly cool idea. So if I follow what you're
suggesting, we'd have a single python.exe, probably installed in
system32, which did the necessary command line juggling and shebang
parsing, then
On Sunday, March 6, 2011 at 9:53 AM, Brian Curtin wrote:
On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 11:41, Michael Foord fuzzy...@voidspace.org.uk wrote:
- Hide quoted message -
I would like to see us create version specific (i.e. python32.exe /
python32w.exe) binaries (or links if we drop support for
Tim Golden wrote:
On 07/03/2011 10:49, Mark Hammond wrote:
On 7/03/2011 9:33 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
That sounds like a fairly cool idea. So if I follow what you're
suggesting, we'd have a single python.exe, probably installed in
system32, which did the necessary command line juggling and
On 07/03/2011 05:19, Mark Hammond wrote:
[snip...]
(B) declare the Python version in the content of the script file. This
cures most of the ripple effects of the above, but requires a launcher
or wrapper program to be designed, implemented, and installed. There
are a variety of subsolutions for
On 07/03/2011 17:21, Sridhar Ratnakumar wrote:
On Sunday, March 6, 2011 at 9:53 AM, Brian Curtin wrote:
On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 11:41, Michael Foordfuzzy...@voidspace.org.uk
mailto:fuzzy...@voidspace.org.ukwrote:
- Hide quoted message -
I would like to see us create version specific (i.e.
On 07/03/2011 01:18, Mark Hammond wrote:
[snip...]
That said though, I'm only -0 on python2.exe/python3.exe - I don't
think it will hurt, but also don't think it will help that much in
practice. It may also turn out to be unnecessary should a complete
solution be implemented - eg, a python
On 7 March 2011 20:33, Michael Foord fuzzy...@voidspace.org.uk wrote:
So why not do both? We could create the extra binaries to bring Python on
Windows inline with the unix conventions for command line invocations, and
the new launcher can follow on as a nice addition.
I was assuming that the
On Mar 7, 2011, at 3:49 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
The launcher could also (as per Mark's suggestion) interpret a shebang
line in the script, so that scripts could specify their required
version without needing a different command,or multiple
version-specific extensions.
Note that, on Unix, python
On 07/03/2011 22:18, James Y Knight wrote:
On Mar 7, 2011, at 3:49 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
The launcher could also (as per Mark's suggestion) interpret a shebang
line in the script, so that scripts could specify their required
version without needing a different command,or multiple
On 8/03/2011 7:33 AM, Michael Foord wrote:
A python launcher as you describe is a *great* idea.
A few concerns:
* we're missing an opportunity to do something easy (Martin is happy to
modify the installer and says it is easy) for something that may or may
not happen
Don't let my -0 stop
On 07/03/2011 22:48, Mark Hammond wrote:
On 8/03/2011 7:33 AM, Michael Foord wrote:
A python launcher as you describe is a *great* idea.
A few concerns:
* we're missing an opportunity to do something easy (Martin is happy to
modify the installer and says it is easy) for something that may or
Mark Hammond wrote:
Yup - although I think a pythonw.exe launcher would be needed too
Couldn't the launcher look at the extension of the file being
launched to decide about this?
--
Greg
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
Michael Foord wrote:
- I doubt calling it python.exe will fly, but I'm not sure. If so
what will you call what is currently 'python.exe'? - if not then python
foo.py on the command line will *still* not work...
However, if it's installed as the exe associated with the .py
and .pyw
On 07/03/2011 23:52, Greg Ewing wrote:
Michael Foord wrote:
- I doubt calling it python.exe will fly, but I'm not sure. If so
what will you call what is currently 'python.exe'? - if not then
python foo.py on the command line will *still* not work...
However, if it's installed as the exe
On 8/03/2011 10:15 AM, Greg Ewing wrote:
Mark Hammond wrote:
Yup - although I think a pythonw.exe launcher would be needed too
Couldn't the launcher look at the extension of the file being
launched to decide about this?
Nope - the launcher itself must be marked as console or windows, and
On 3/7/2011 4:00 PM, Michael Foord wrote:
On 07/03/2011 23:52, Greg Ewing wrote:
Michael Foord wrote:
- I doubt calling it python.exe will fly, but I'm not sure. If
so what will you call what is currently 'python.exe'? - if not then
python foo.py on the command line will *still* not
On 3/7/2011 2:18 PM, James Y Knight wrote:
On Mar 7, 2011, at 3:49 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
The launcher could also (as per Mark's suggestion) interpret a shebang
line in the script, so that scripts could specify their required
version without needing a different command,or multiple
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 9:33 PM, Mark Hammond skippy.hamm...@gmail.com wrote:
IIUC, the PEP language is referring to links which point to a specific
version of Python and that there is no suggestion a 'python3' will live in
the Python 3 binary tree. If that is correct and assuming we don't want
On 6/03/2011 11:51 PM, Dj Gilcrease wrote:
Why not modify the windows installers to install into C:\Python\X.Y
and have the .bat files generated in C:\Python which is what I have
been doing manually since py25. I just add C:\Python to the system
Path then create/modify the bat files for new
On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 8:10 AM, Mark Hammond mhamm...@skippinet.com.au wrote:
That sounds like a reasonable scheme people may choose to use - however, it
doesn't really address the basic issue - something still needs to add
c:\Python to PATH, and the scheme itself doesn't really necessitate the
On 6 March 2011 02:33, Mark Hammond skippy.hamm...@gmail.com wrote:
IIUC, the PEP language is referring to links which point to a specific
version of Python and that there is no suggestion a 'python3' will live in
the Python 3 binary tree. If that is correct and assuming we don't want to
Using batch files is a poor idea, IMO, because you have to explicitly
call a batch file from another, or the remainder of the caller will
not execute. Installing to System32 s also questionable, but if it's
just the launchers, it might be okay. From an installer's perspective,
it would really help
On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 09:07, Michael Urman mur...@gmail.com wrote:
I think Glenn Linderman hit the use cases on the head; I'm unclear why
he was against the overhead of a helper executable.
Interpreter startup time is increasing with every version IIRC**, so adding
another slowdown means we
On 06/03/2011 02:33, Mark Hammond wrote:
On 6/03/2011 12:37 AM, Michael Foord wrote:
On 05/03/2011 07:02, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 10:47 AM, Mark
Hammondmhamm...@skippinet.com.au wrote:
I think this discussion should be divorced from this PEP and taken up
with
the discussion
On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 11:41, Michael Foord fuzzy...@voidspace.org.ukwrote:
I would like to see us create version specific (i.e. python32.exe /
python32w.exe) binaries (or links if we drop support for earlier versions of
Windows or some filesystems - I'm agnostic on that issue) *plus* a
Some nitpicks:
'The python command on Unix-Like Systems':
This should be 'The python Command on Unix-Like Systems'
python will refer to the same target as either python2 or python3,
depending on the specific distribution and system:
Nothing should break if python isn't the same as either python2
Am 06.03.2011 21:12, schrieb Kerrick Staley:
Some nitpicks:
Heh, you are the author of the PEP :-)
You'll find the source of your PEP in
http://svn.python.org/projects/peps/trunk/
Please provide Nick with a patch/updated version; if you want to,
you can also get write access to the PEP
Sorry, I was unaware that Gmail splits threads that are longer than 100
messages, so I hadn't seen the last 26 messages when I wrote the above
message. It seems that in the last 26 messages, there was lots of discussion
toward the inclusion of provisions for Windows in this PEP. I didn't mean to
Heh, you are the author of the PEP :-)
You'll find the source of your PEP in
http://svn.python.org/projects/peps/trunk/
Please provide Nick with a patch/updated version; if you want to,
you can also get write access to the PEP repository.
I should've mentioned that I'd like a consensus
I should've mentioned that I'd like a consensus (or a lack of protest)
on the changes related to these snippets:
[...]
-Exclusions of MS Windows
I think you won't get consensus on that: there are strong proponents and
strong opponents (I think Mark being a strong proponent of such
In article
AANLkTimPEDWCsiOXfq=ppyypfkbmr-oja54m-cnaq...@mail.gmail.com,
Kerrick Staley m...@kerrickstaley.com wrote:
I should've mentioned that I'd like a consensus (or a lack of protest) on
the changes related to these snippets:
-python will refer to the same target as either python2 or
On 06/03/2011 21:36, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
I should've mentioned that I'd like a consensus (or a lack of protest)
on the changes related to these snippets:
[...]
-Exclusions of MS Windows
I think you won't get consensus on that: there are strong proponents
and strong opponents (I think
On 7/03/2011 1:55 AM, Paul Moore wrote:
On 6 March 2011 02:33, Mark Hammondskippy.hamm...@gmail.com wrote:
IIUC, the PEP language is referring to links which point to a specific
version of Python and that there is no suggestion a 'python3' will live in
the Python 3 binary tree. If that is
On 7/03/2011 10:04 AM, Michael Foord wrote:
Paul Moore was +1 on Windows being included. Mark did accept that some
of the changes were desirable, but was also concerned they didn't
address all the issues on Windows. I *would* like to see all the issues
addressed but I think that is outside the
On 3/6/2011 8:18 PM, Mark Hammond wrote:
To be clear, I was suggesting that using .bat files in system32 is a
close analogy to the *nix situation - I didn't mean to advocate for it
to actually happen :) Further, I see the creation of a python3.exe in
the Python install directory as quite
On 3/6/2011 7:07 AM, Michael Urman wrote:
I think Glenn Linderman hit the use cases on the head; I'm unclear why
he was against the overhead of a helper executable. The things I would
really want solutions for are these:
* double click on a script, and have it launch the right python (2 or
3,
I think that at this point there's been sufficient agreement that the
technical issues on Windows are too complex to warrant addressing them in
this PEP, and that a separate PEP will be written addressing Windows, so
that is what will happen. A new email thread for the Windows topic should be
On 7/03/2011 3:30 PM, Glenn Linderman wrote:
I'm only against the overhead of a helper written in Python, since it
would have to launch Python (some explicit version) to run the helper
script, and then launch the right version of Python to execute the
real script. You mention a thin executable
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Kerrick Staley m...@kerrickstaley.com wrote:
I think that at this point there's been sufficient agreement that the
technical issues on Windows are too complex to warrant addressing them in
this PEP, and that a separate PEP will be written addressing Windows, so
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 3:19 PM, Mark Hammond skippy.hamm...@gmail.com wrote:
Without putting too much thought into it, I think a simple scheme could work
where the path must either be /usr/bin/python[23]? or a fully-qualified
path to a Python executable. IIUC, this should allow most scripts to
On 7/03/2011 4:34 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 3:19 PM, Mark Hammondskippy.hamm...@gmail.com wrote:
Without putting too much thought into it, I think a simple scheme could work
where the path must either be /usr/bin/python[23]? or a fully-qualified
path to a Python
On 05/03/2011 07:02, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 10:47 AM, Mark Hammondmhamm...@skippinet.com.au wrote:
I think this discussion should be divorced from this PEP and taken up with
the discussion about the PATH and the last installed wins issue Martin
mentions - only all of them
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 11:37 PM, Michael Foord
fuzzy...@voidspace.org.uk wrote:
I don't think it would be good (or necessary) to split this into a separate
PEP. PyCon (sprints or language summit) would be a good place to talk about
this.
Sure. With a PEP to record decisions this time, we
On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 12:22 AM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 11:37 PM, Michael Foord
fuzzy...@voidspace.org.uk wrote:
I don't think it would be good (or necessary) to split this into a separate
PEP. PyCon (sprints or language summit) would be a good place to
On 05/03/2011 14:22, Nick Coghlan wrote:
[snip...]
Martin has also indicated that making appropriate changes to the Windows
installer would not be difficult if we agree that changing the 2.7
maintenance branch in this way is appropriate.
True, it's only the more exotic ideas (like trying to do
On 05/03/2011 00:47, Mark Hammond wrote:
On 5/03/2011 8:21 AM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
...
As for Windows support: we currently don't install a python3.exe binary,
let alone python2.exe or pythonw2.exe (or is that python2w.exe?). I'll
adjust the installer if the PEP asks me to. For the reasons
On 6/03/2011 12:37 AM, Michael Foord wrote:
On 05/03/2011 07:02, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 10:47 AM, Mark
Hammondmhamm...@skippinet.com.au wrote:
I think this discussion should be divorced from this PEP and taken up
with
the discussion about the PATH and the last installed
Folks, please stop CC'ing p...@python.org for non-PEP submissions. They all
get held for moderator approval. I've approved a few of them, but I'm going
to start rejecting them (so you get a bounce :) unless the message actually
contains a PEP.
cheerfully-co-editing-peps-ly y'rs,
-Barry
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 1:10 AM, Barry Warsaw ba...@python.org wrote:
Folks, please stop CC'ing p...@python.org for non-PEP submissions. They all
get held for moderator approval. I've approved a few of them, but I'm going
to start rejecting them (so you get a bounce :) unless the message
On Mar 05, 2011, at 01:33 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 1:10 AM, Barry Warsaw ba...@python.org wrote:
Folks, please stop CC'ing p...@python.org for non-PEP submissions. They all
get held for moderator approval. I've approved a few of them, but I'm going
to start rejecting
Is there any discussion still going on about the details of the PEP
(now PEP 394)? I'm in favor of the general idea. What about Windows? I
think it should be the same there if possible.
The only thing I note is that the PEP doesn't explicitly state (unless
I missed it) that python should invoke
Am 04.03.2011 20:14, schrieb Guido van Rossum:
Is there any discussion still going on about the details of the PEP
(now PEP 394)? I'm in favor of the general idea. What about Windows? I
think it should be the same there if possible.
I think a key issue is whether to change future 2.7 bug fix
On Mar 4, 2011, at 4:21 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
and setting PYTHONPATH will continue to break installations).
Indeed, it's really *quite* unfortunate that the proposal to make python3 use
PYTHON3PATH instead of PYTHONPATH was rejected.
James
___
On Mar 4, 2011, at 4:21 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Am 04.03.2011 20:14, schrieb Guido van Rossum:
Is there any discussion still going on about the details of the PEP
(now PEP 394)? I'm in favor of the general idea. What about Windows? I
think it should be the same there if possible.
I
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 1:21 PM, Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de wrote:
Am 04.03.2011 20:14, schrieb Guido van Rossum:
Is there any discussion still going on about the details of the PEP
(now PEP 394)? I'm in favor of the general idea. What about Windows? I
think it should be the same there
On Fri, 2011-03-04 at 22:21 +0100, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
As for Windows support: we currently don't install a python3.exe binary,
let alone python2.exe or pythonw2.exe (or is that python2w.exe?). I'll
adjust the installer if the PEP asks me to. For the reasons discussed,
I'm -0 on the change
On 5/03/2011 8:21 AM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
...
As for Windows support: we currently don't install a python3.exe binary,
let alone python2.exe or pythonw2.exe (or is that python2w.exe?). I'll
adjust the installer if the PEP asks me to. For the reasons discussed,
I'm -0 on the change (i.e.
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 10:47 AM, Mark Hammond mhamm...@skippinet.com.au wrote:
I think this discussion should be divorced from this PEP and taken up with
the discussion about the PATH and the last installed wins issue Martin
mentions - only all of them taken together will fix this issue - not
80 matches
Mail list logo
