It looks good to me! Also, I see no reason not to always use a 32bit
version of the launcher other than
I'll change it, then - the strong reason *for* always using a 32-bit
launcher is packaging, as the 32-bit installer would otherwise have to
include both a 32-bit launcher and a 64-bit
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
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 1:30 AM, Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de wrote:
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
Sorry, but I missed the announcement of an updated PEP.
It looks good to me! Also, I see no reason not to always use a 32bit
version of the launcher other than (a) the 64bit code already exists and
works and (b) it might mean it is no longer possible to do a complete
build of a 64bit Python
Martin approached me earlier and requested that I act as PEP czar for
397. I haven't been involved in the writing of the PEP and have been
mostly observing from the outside, so I accepted and hope to get this
wrapped up quickly and implemented in time for the beta. The PEP is
pretty complete, but
