On Mar 17, 2011, at 05:33 PM, Carl Meyer wrote: >On 03/17/2011 05:13 PM, Jim Fulton wrote: >> I suggest the following: >> >> Look for argv[0]+'.pythonv' and then for '../pythonv.cfg'. >> >> So if I've linked the Python executable to ./bin/clean, look for >> ./bin/clean.pythonv and ./pythonv.cfg. > >Nice - I like the ability to have multiple interpreters side-by-side >with different pythonv configurations.
Indeed. In that case though, wouldn't ./bin/clean.cfg be fine? Even if the executable were named ./bin/python a sibling ./bin/python.cfg would be fine too I think. I agree with Carl that I dislike the inconsistency in the extension, but I think argv[0] + '.cfg' would be fine. Having a non-.cfg or -.conf extension makes it harder to do stuff like automatically set the major mode in Emacs (although I guess it wouldn't be that hard to add a mapping for *.pythonv). >Is ".cfg" generally preferred to ".conf" for some good reason? I don't >personally care too much; the former is shorter but the latter looks >less ugly to me ;-) I guess I'm on the .cfg side, but wouldn't care too much if .conf is the consensus. >And I kind of dislike the inconsistency in extension; would >"clean.pythonv.cfg" be acceptable? I'm not sure you need the .pythonv. part. >To simplify documentation and allow more flexibility, I might just check >for all four: first the executable-specific one in both directories, >then the general one in both directories. Definitely add a --verbose option to print out exactly which one got chosen. :) -Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
