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 different than the *nix situation
(where the 'python3' link is not in the install dir, but instead in a
'system' dir). IOW, I was trying to point out the solution to the
problem on *nix doesn't translate that well to Windows, so Windows
should not be considered as part of this PEP. That isn't to suggest
Windows should not be considered at all.
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 launcher" which (a) read the shebang lines
and (b) allowed something like "python -3" on the command-line would
render both python3.exe and requests to have multiple installed Python
versions on the PATH redundant.
I completely support Mark's repeated request that Windows be left out of
the PEP. I'm sure that Guido himself would say that 'include Windows'
was meant to be qualified with 'if reasonable and sensible'.
To summarize why not 'reasonable and sensible':
1. The solution in the PEP depends on the operating system respecting
the shebang line. Windows does not, so the PEP is not appicable, unless
we write a launcher that does. But that is outside the scope of the PEP.
2. There is something of a consensus on most of the PEP as is, but less
for Windows. The Unix-like PEP should be finalized, approved, and
implemented now. Windows can wait.
3. As a Windows user, I would like a *complete* solution that cannot all
be part of PEP. It makes no sense to incorporate a partial solution that
may be obsoleted by a real Windows install PEP.
4. I think a launcher may be the best idea. If so, other parts of a
complete solution will flow from how that is written.
5. The PEP authors cannot write a Windows sub-PEP, so it would require
different authors and effectively be a half-PEP in itself anyway. The
implementations of the currently PEP and a Windows upgrade would mostly
be disjoint also, both in terms of code and authors.
--
Terry Jan Reedy
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
