Gael Varoquaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 01:30:14PM +1200, Greg Ewing wrote: > > Maybe the system should come with two pythons installed, one for > > use by the system and the other for users to add things to. Or at > > least be set up so that it appears that way -- they might share > > files under the hood. > > I am quite wary about these proposals, as well as the one > environment per application ones. > > What you propose resembles very much to what MacOSX does, and MacOSX > seems just so broken for Python. I don't use it, but I see on the > different scientific-Python-related mailing lists how users have > difficulties with MacOSX, and I have heard many people complain > about this "feature". > > As a per-application environment, I think it is bad, because it > limits reuse. As I see things, applications should be able to have > access to all the Python modules installed, to be able to use them, > if they need. I get definitely see applications having more feature > if some modules are installed (eg. Sphinx, which does syntax > highlighting if pygments is installed).
Thank you. This is a major part of my concern. The Python environment should be reliably the same when invoked on a given system configuration, with egregious application-specific differences to *the instance itself* kept to a minimum. That's not to say that applications can't *override* the default instance; but such customisation should be kept to a minimum in order that dependencies, special cases, etc. are minimised. -- \ "What's another word for Thesaurus?" -- Steven Wright | `\ | _o__) | Ben Finney _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
