Re: [IronPython] clarification on current state of embedding

2009-06-18 Thread Michael Foord
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

Re: [IronPython] Hosting, Adaptive Compilation, and Interpreted Mode

2009-06-18 Thread Jeff Hardy
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 7:04 AM, Curt Hagenlocherc...@hagenlocher.org wrote: In 2.6, the current state is as follows: The Interpreted setting has been removed and AdaptiveCompilation is now the default. The sole alternative to adaptive compilation is full up front compilation, which can be

Re: [IronPython] clarification on current state of embedding

2009-06-18 Thread Lepisto, Stephen P
From MSDN (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb383796.aspx): Differences Between .NET Framework Versions All three versions of the .NET Framework are based on version 2.0 of the CLR. The versions of the .NET Framework differ from each other in the list of assemblies that each makes

Re: [IronPython] Hosting, Adaptive Compilation, and Interpreted Mode

2009-06-18 Thread Curt Hagenlocher
Adaptive compilation is built on an interpreter that uses heuristics to decide when to compile a particular function. If there were going to be a pure interpreted mode, it would probably come in the form of overriding those heuristics to say never compile. The original interpreter was a much less

[IronPython] IronPython 2.6 CodePlex Source Update

2009-06-18 Thread merllab
This is an automated email letting you know that sources have recently been pushed out. You can download these newer sources directly from http://ironpython.codeplex.com/SourceControl/changeset/view/55001. ADDED SOURCES

Re: [IronPython] Hosting, Adaptive Compilation, and Interpreted Mode

2009-06-18 Thread Jeff Hardy
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 8:30 AM, Curt Hagenlocherc...@hagenlocher.org wrote: Adaptive compilation is built on an interpreter that uses heuristics to decide when to compile a particular function. If there were going to be a pure interpreted mode, it would probably come in the form of overriding

Re: [IronPython] clarification on current state of embedding

2009-06-18 Thread Justin Regele
This makes sense, although I am still confused as to why problems keep creeping up to me. I am on Vista, though, and so I think my problem is that while I installed 2.0, I cannot instal SP1. The server my code will run on is still on 2.0 until the new system is rolled out, which may be 6 months

Re: [IronPython] clarification on current state of embedding

2009-06-18 Thread Curt Hagenlocher
Are you getting an error when you run ipy.exe that tells you that SP1 is needed? If not, then you already have it installed. IIRC, 2.0SP1 was pushed out through Windows Update. On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 1:18 PM, Justin Regele jregel...@gmail.com wrote: Yeah, I thought it was strange too. To be

Re: [IronPython] clarification on current state of embedding

2009-06-18 Thread Justin Regele
No. I can run ipy.exe. I've successfully run embedded scripts, I've ported my python app to IPy in Visual Studio and worked through the needed modifications. I did need to install the 2.0 sdk at one point, since suddenly things just 'broke' on day when i turned on my computer. Probably an update

Re: [IronPython] private functions within a module

2009-06-18 Thread Justin Regele
As of Python25, there is no thing as a 'private' method, although the _method() convention is what is generally used. also, staticmethod(objfunc) is used to make a method static. don't know if yo already know this. rather an annoying way of doing it. On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 11:34 AM, Michael

Re: [IronPython] private functions within a module

2009-06-18 Thread Michael Foord
Justin Regele wrote: As of Python25, there is no thing as a 'private' method, although the _method() convention is what is generally used. also, staticmethod(objfunc) is used to make a method static. don't know if yo already know this. rather an annoying way of doing it. class

Re: [IronPython] private functions within a module

2009-06-18 Thread Justin Regele
hahaha. thanks michael. On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 1:38 PM, Michael Foord fuzzy...@voidspace.org.ukwrote: Justin Regele wrote: As of Python25, there is no thing as a 'private' method, although the _method() convention is what is generally used. also, staticmethod(objfunc) is used to make a

Re: [IronPython] clarification on current state of embedding

2009-06-18 Thread Dino Viehland
Does everything basically work for you if you tell VS to build to target 3.5? What I expect you'll find is that you can just build and target 3.5 and it'll all work on someone's machine w/ 2.0 installed. The important thing to watch out for is not adding references to assemblies that aren't

Re: [IronPython] clarification on current state of embedding

2009-06-18 Thread Dave Fugate
.NET 2.0 was never released for Vista (which came with .NET 3.0). This is why you're unable to install .NET 2.0 SP1 on Vista. Furthermore, there was never a .NET 3.0 SP1 release for Vista...only .NET 3.5 which includes the .NET 2.0 SP1 changes and you can download this from here -

Re: [IronPython] Ironpython COM vs Jscript.Net COM

2009-06-18 Thread Shri Borde
IronPython 2.0 supports dynamic COM servers. See http://blogs.msdn.com/shrib/archive/2008/07/30/idispatch-support-on-in-ironpython-beta-4.aspx -Original Message- From: users-boun...@lists.ironpython.com [mailto:users-boun...@lists.ironpython.com] On Behalf Of Michel Claveau Sent: