I didn't check it but will have a look.
Thank you very much :)
Andreas
schrieb Amaury Forgeot d'Arc am 29.04.2013 00:38:
2013/4/29 Andreas Holtz a.ho...@gmx.net mailto:a.ho...@gmx.net
I'm bound to Python 2.5.
I make heavy usage of 4Suite which is not supported for Python 2.6+ so I
On 29/04/2013 00:30, Andreas Holtz wrote:
I'm bound to Python 2.5.
I make heavy usage of 4Suite which is not supported for Python 2.6+ so I
can not upgrade :(
Or does anyone know a good XML lib that support xpath?
What about Amara 2.x:
I'm bound to Python 2.5.
I make heavy usage of 4Suite which is not supported for Python 2.6+ so I can
not upgrade :(
Or does anyone know a good XML lib that support xpath?
Regards
Andreas
schrieb Michael Manfre am 26.03.2013 14:08:
Anyone running a no longer supported version of Python on
2013/4/29 Andreas Holtz a.ho...@gmx.net
I'm bound to Python 2.5.
I make heavy usage of 4Suite which is not supported for Python 2.6+ so I
can not upgrade :(
Or does anyone know a good XML lib that support xpath?
Did you try lxml? It has good xpath support.
And it's actively maintained.
--
2.5 is still good. I am suggesting (begging) that we drop 2.4 .
On Apr 28, 2013 11:31 PM, Andreas Holtz a.ho...@gmx.net wrote:
I'm bound to Python 2.5.
I make heavy usage of 4Suite which is not supported for Python 2.6+ so I
can not upgrade :(
Or does anyone know a good XML lib that support
This has also been discussed in the GUID thread, but I am bringing it back
to this one...
I have basically completed the work of breaking adodbapi up into a package
of smaller modules. It has really helped to make the code more readable.
There is now a remote module, so that a programmer (on
My apologies for publishing misinformation: Pyro4 does not *require*
Python 2.6, it simply does not go out of it's way to support 2.5. In fact,
it does work. I have discovered that the 2.6 dependencies were in my own
code for the server and remote modules fixed them. I had to write a main
Python 2.4 is VS.Net 2003 (aka VC7).
If we can drop support for Windows 95/98/ME while we're
at it, it would eliminate some more maintenance headaches.
At this point in time, even dropping Windows NT isn't unreasonable.
Roger
Mark Hammond skippy.hamm...@gmail.com wrote in message
Perhaps it is time...
I found a copy of Python 2.3 to load onto a new computer in order to test
my software, but it was not easy. It is in the small print about four
pages down from the download page on python.org. I was one of 432 people
who have downloaded the 2.3 installer for pywin32 build
[re supporting 2.3 for adodbapi]
Ditch it, I say. I think the minimum I test against for any of my stuff
is 2.4 -- and I'm more and more inclined towards 2.6+. As you say,
there's a small but definite overhead, the more so as we support 2.x and
3.x from the same codebase.
(I have to do some
Is it really worthwhile to keep maintaining support for Python 2.3, which
was released in 2005 and has not been updated since 2008?
my vote: keep the running versions, aka builds up to now downloadable.
Drop the support for more modern builds of PythonWin32. Whoever is
forced to work with
I've been happy to drop support for a couple of years, but while it kept
working I kept building it :) I can't recall if 2.4 is built with vc6
too - if so, we might as well kill that too.
Cheers,
Mark.
On 26/03/2013 8:33 PM, Vernon D. Cole wrote:
Perhaps it is time...
I found a copy of
+1
Mark Hammond skippy.hamm...@gmail.com wrote:
I've been happy to drop support for a couple of years, but while it
kept
working I kept building it :) I can't recall if 2.4 is built with vc6
too - if so, we might as well kill that too.
Cheers,
Mark.
On 26/03/2013 8:33 PM, Vernon D. Cole
Anyone running a no longer supported version of Python on Windows has
already made the conscious decision that upgrading their code to newer
versions is not worth the cost. No point in shifting that cost to pywin32
maintenance. +1 on dropping all code from any version of Python that no
longer
14 matches
Mail list logo
