Justin Regele wrote:
This brings up another question I've encountered. My understanding was
that IPy had problems with 3.5, and so I have been targeting 2.0. But
when I try to reference the IronPython and Microsoft.Scripting
assemblies, Visual Studio says I need 3.5
I've created many
...@lists.ironpython.com] On Behalf Of Michael Foord
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 4:49 AM
To: Discussion of IronPython
Subject: Re: [IronPython] clarification on current state of embedding
Justin Regele wrote:
This brings up another question I've encountered. My understanding was
that IPy had problems
of IronPython
Subject: Re: [IronPython] clarification on current state of embedding
Justin Regele wrote:
This brings up another question I've encountered. My understanding was
that IPy had problems with 3.5, and so I have been targeting 2.0. But
when I try to reference the IronPython
...@lists.ironpython.com
mailto:users-boun...@lists.ironpython.com] On Behalf Of Michael
Foord
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 4:49 AM
To: Discussion of IronPython
Subject: Re: [IronPython] clarification on current state of embedding
Justin Regele wrote:
This brings up
[mailto:users-boun...@lists.ironpython.com
mailto:users-boun...@lists.ironpython.com] On Behalf Of Michael
Foord
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 4:49 AM
To: Discussion of IronPython
Subject: Re: [IronPython] clarification on current state of embedding
Justin Regele wrote
-boun...@lists.ironpython.com
[mailto:users-boun...@lists.ironpython.com] On Behalf Of Justin Regele
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 1:31 PM
To: Discussion of IronPython
Subject: Re: [IronPython] clarification on current state of embedding
No. I can run ipy.exe. I've successfully run embedded scripts
] On Behalf Of Justin Regele
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 1:19 PM
To: Discussion of IronPython
Subject: Re: [IronPython] clarification on current state of embedding
Yeah, I thought it was strange too. To be sure, I just downloaded the x64 .net
2.0 Sp1 installer again, ran it and here
What is the status of referencing IPy libraries compiled to dlls by other
CLR languages? Google turned up that as of 1.1 you had to use the
embedding/hosting api's, since the dlls were not compatible with say C#
assemblies. There were allusions made to this being changed.
I would think that you would always need the DLR at least because of
the references that the compiled dlls would have.
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Justin Regelejregel...@gmail.com wrote:
What is the status of referencing IPy libraries compiled to dlls by other
CLR languages? Google turned
Justin Regele wrote:
What is the status of referencing IPy libraries compiled to dlls by
other CLR languages? Google turned up that as of 1.1 you had to use
the embedding/hosting api's, since the dlls were not compatible with
say C# assemblies. There were allusions made to this being changed.
There are so many different .NET versions -- I suppose that somewhere in
msdn there is an explanation of the differences -- but I have often wondered
why IronPython used 2.0 when 3.5 is available. Just idle curiosity, I don't
really care, but if there are significant new features, will IronPython
Good point!
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 5:12 PM, Michael Foord fuzzy...@voidspace.org.ukwrote:
Curt Hagenlocher wrote:
...except through the hosting API *and through the new C# dynamic
functionality in .NET 4.0*.
And how do you get to the classes to use them with the new dynamic
This brings up another question I've encountered. My understanding was that
IPy had problems with 3.5, and so I have been targeting 2.0. But when I try
to reference the IronPython and Microsoft.Scripting assemblies, Visual
Studio says I need 3.5
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 6:05 PM, Curt Hagenlocher
13 matches
Mail list logo
