On 10/06/11 18:02, Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Oct 06, 2011, at 05:46 PM, Éric Araujo wrote: > >>Le 06/10/2011 17:31, Barry Warsaw a écrit : >>> I agree we can't use virtualenv, and shouldn't use virtualize. I'm afraid >>> that picking something cute might make it harder to discover. `pythonv` or >>> `cpythonv` seem like good choices to me. Maybe the former, so we could >>> potentially have jythonv, etc. >> >>I’m not sure we would. The feature is two-fold: >>- changes to getpath.c, site.py and other usual suspects so that CPython >>supports being run in an isolated environment; >>- a new module used to create isolated environments. > > While the other implementations might not be able to share any of CPython's > code, it's still a worthy feature for any Python implementation I think. > >>The first part is implemented in CPython; the second part needs a module >>name to replace virtualenv. python -m pythonv doesn’t seem right. > > Nope, although `python -m virtualize` seems about perfect.
Hmm, with proper interpreter support I don't see what would be so "virtual" about it anymore. Georg _______________________________________________ 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