> Agreed, I would expect the same. I would think taking out the word > "only" and then flipping newer and older in the sentence would correct > it.
Will change. >> "On 64bit Windows with both 32bit and 64bit implementations of the same >> (major.minor) Python version installed, the 64bit version will always be >> preferred. This will be true for both 32bit and 64bit implementations of >> the launcher - a 32bit launcher will prefer to execute a 64bit Python >> installation of the specified version if available." >> >> This implies to me that the 32bit installation *will* install a 32bit >> launcher and that there could be both versions of the launcher installed. No - this paragraph talks about the Python being launched, not the bitness of the launcher. As (currently) the launcher creates a subprocess always, this is quite feasible. The bitness of the launcher really doesn't matter, except that a 32-bit launcher cannot access all directories, and a 64-bit launcher does not work on a 32-bit system. Now that I think about it, it might be that it's best to always have the launcher as a 32-bit binary. It could disable the filesystem and registry redirection if it really wanted to, and would work on both 32-bit and 64-bit systems. > I took that as covering an independently-installed launcher. > > You could always install your own 32-bit launcher, and it'd prefer to > launch a binary matching the machine type. No, that's not the plan. The binary being launched is entirely controlled by command line arguments, ini files, and shebang lines. I personally find it sad that it always creates a subprocess, and it could avoid doing so if the launched Python has the same bitness, but alas, the problems with doing so are mostly convincing. > So yes, there could be > multiple launchers installed for different machine types, and I'm not > sure why we'd want to (or how we could) prevent people from installing > them. You could have a 64-bit launcher available system-wide in your > Windows folder, then you could have a 32-bit launcher running out of > C:\Users\Terry for some purposes. The PEP doesn't really consider launcher binaries not installed into the standard location. It would work, but it's out of scope of the PEP. The PEP actually only talks about launcher binaries in c:\windows, and essentially says that they must match the bitness of the system. > My only additional comment would be to have the "Configuration file" > implementation details supplemented with a readable example of where > the py.ini file should be placed. On my machine that is > "C:\Users\brian\AppData\Local", rather than making people have to run > that parameter through the listed function via pywin32. Will do. Martin _______________________________________________ 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
