> 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 laun
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 w
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 1:30 AM, "Martin v. Löwis" 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 the
> 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
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 t
