In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'm trying to drive iCal using appscript. I can follow simple examples,
> mostly like a parrot though. This works, for example:
>
> ev = app('iCal').calendars.filter(its.title=="Home").events
> events = zip(ev.start_date.get(),
I'm trying to drive iCal using appscript. I can follow simple examples,
mostly like a parrot though. This works, for example:
ev = app('iCal').calendars.filter(its.title=="Home").events
events = zip(ev.start_date.get(), ev.end_date.get(),
ev.summary.get(), ev.descriptio
Bill Janssen wrote:
> > Problem with the official Mac-specific modules and documentation is
>> there's quite of stuff in there that hasn't been correct/usable since
>> OS 9. It's just that nobody's gotten around to dealing with
>> it. Experienced users already know which bits to avoid, so there's
Bob wrote:
>>It seems that the gensuitemodule is still the way to go.
>
>Definitely not. It hasn't ever worked very well on OS X. IIRC, it can't
>even do Finder correctly (either that or iTunes, I forget which).
Yup. gsm's always been a bit flaky, and now appears to be pining for the fjords
There's a nice little tutorial guide introduction to IDLE at
http://hkn.eecs.berkeley.edu/~dyoo/python/idle_intro/index.html.
It's been translated into 13 other languages by various people.
But no one has translated it into Mac by providing Mac screenshots to
replace the Windows ones there.
Bill
I've updated the Applescript wiki page accordingly.
Bill
>
> On Feb 10, 2006, at 5:31 PM, Bill Janssen wrote:
>
> > Is there a winner yet? The appscript wiki page seems to have been
> > modified more recently than the aeve one.
>
> appscript is the winner. I don't care to maintain aeve, and
At 11:58 AM -0800 2/10/06, Christopher Barker wrote:
>Rodney Somerstein wrote:
>>. It would be really nice to have a more basic introduction to what
>>py2app actually does.
>
>Why don't you write that, put it in the Wiki, then ask this list for
>technical review. That's what Wikis are for, and I
I've updated it to take into account Bob's comments.
http://bill.janssen.org/mac/new-macpython-page.html.
It still kind of assumes that the installers will automagically do
everything that needs doing. I assume that will be truer with the
universal installer.
Should there be a paragraph just be
On Feb 10, 2006, at 8:22 PM, Bill Janssen wrote:Though, frankly, I don't care what the trademark is, and I think people tend in real usage to use "MacOS". Well . . . not for people I know. "OSX" ["OS X"] is more common in my experience, especially among those aware that OS9 was a Mac OS.And I suspe
On Feb 10, 2006, at 5:34 PM, Bill Janssen wrote:
>>> And how about bundling tcltkaqua into it, as well?
>>
>> Because some of us, at least, have no interest in tcl. I'm not clear
>> whether its presence interferes with wx (thing #421 that I'm not
>> clear about), but it doesn't help; why should I
On Feb 10, 2006, at 5:31 PM, Bill Janssen wrote:
> Is there a winner yet? The appscript wiki page seems to have been
> modified more recently than the aeve one.
appscript is the winner. I don't care to maintain aeve, and
gensuitemodule is just plain broken.
> It seems that the gensuitemodul
> The audience we're imagining is one looking to branch out a little --
> into programming, to begin with, into Python in particular.
That's *one* of the audiences.
> If that
> involves downloading something, that's perfectly familiar territory.
> If I were a Mac user interested in a new ap
> > And how about bundling tcltkaqua into it, as well?
>
> Because some of us, at least, have no interest in tcl. I'm not clear
> whether its presence interferes with wx (thing #421 that I'm not
> clear about), but it doesn't help; why should I want it on my system?
Because you can't run IDLE
Is there a winner yet? The appscript wiki page seems to have been
modified more recently than the aeve one.
It seems that the gensuitemodule is still the way to go.
Bill
___
Pythonmac-SIG maillist - Pythonmac-SIG@python.org
http://mail.python.org/m
> Please forget [TigerPython24Fix] exists - I'm
> tired of discussing it.
Fine. The next installer won't have it or need it, and I'll remove
the bit about it on my sample page.
> > And for that matter, why not include TigerPython23Compat as part of
> > the MacPython installer?
>
> TigerPython
> For reference:
>
> 10.0 - Cheetah
> 10.1 - Puma
> 10.2 - Jaguar
> 10.3 - Panther
> 10.4 - Jaguar
> 10.5 - Leopard
>
> Also, the trademark is "Mac OS X" not "MacOS X" or "Mac-OS/X" or
> "MACOSX" ;)
Sorry, Housecat was a (temporary) joke. I'll fix the Mac OS X refs.
Though, frankly, I don't c
> If I need a package outside of their package management system I have
> to go f*!(ing crazy figuring out which *-dev packages i need to
> install in order to get it to configure and make install correctly.
Agreed. I'd like that to be different with MacPython.
Bill
__
On Feb 10, 2006, at 5:34 PM, Bill Janssen wrote:
>> Charles Hartman wrote:
>>> It seems to me (as *much* closer to a newbie than a developer) that
>>> simply recommending the download & install of Python 2.4.x not only
>>> wouldn't put a major obstacle in the way of beginners, but wouldn't
>>> se
On Feb 10, 2006, at 5:31 PM, Bill Janssen wrote:And how about bundling tcltkaqua into it, as well? Because some of us, at least, have no interest in tcl. I'm not clear whether its presence interferes with wx (thing #421 that I'm not clear about), but it doesn't help; why should I want it on my syst
On Feb 10, 2006, at 3:37 PM, Bill Janssen wrote:
> I've put up a new page, with a slightly different address:
>
> http://bill.janssen.org/mac/new-macpython-page.html.
>
> It includes pointers to the Wiki and the FAQ, leads with the
> suggestion to upgrade, keeps the simple example, but drops the
Bill Janssen wrote:
> I don't know about that. The Mac philosophy is something like, "It
> just works". I hear that a lot from new Mac users around here.
Linux users expect it to be installed already, or come with their
distro, but don't expect it to work without tweaking config files. ;-)
Mac
I've put up a new page, with a slightly different address:
http://bill.janssen.org/mac/new-macpython-page.html.
It includes pointers to the Wiki and the FAQ, leads with the
suggestion to upgrade, keeps the simple example, but drops the use of
IDLE, and no longer points to the (seriously damaged)
> For these reasons, many
> people could benefit from upgrading their Python installation to the
> latest version from pythonmac.org. For more information, see the FAQ
> "Differences between Apple's Python and MacPython 2.4?". See also
> "What should I expect when upgrading to MacPython 2.4
On Feb 10, 2006, at 2:34 PM, Bill Janssen wrote:
>> Charles Hartman wrote:
>>> It seems to me (as *much* closer to a newbie than a developer) that
>>> simply recommending the download & install of Python 2.4.x not only
>>> wouldn't put a major obstacle in the way of beginners, but wouldn't
>>> se
On Feb 10, 2006, at 2:31 PM, Bill Janssen wrote:
>>> I agree. If the 2.4.x installer were bundled with TigerPython24Fix
>>> and some quick-start IDLE app into a single installer, that would be
>>> great, and an improvement over the current situation. (And could it
>>> please *not* have the word
> Charles Hartman wrote:
> > It seems to me (as *much* closer to a newbie than a developer) that
> > simply recommending the download & install of Python 2.4.x not only
> > wouldn't put a major obstacle in the way of beginners, but wouldn't
> > seem to, either.
>
> Exactly. It's not like an
> This would be roughly equivalent to us shipping PyObjC for Mac I guess.
Which I'd recommend.
Bill
___
Pythonmac-SIG maillist - Pythonmac-SIG@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pythonmac-sig
On Feb 10, 2006, at 2:22 PM, Bill Janssen wrote:
>> If we get them a double-clickable installer that gets them at least
>> IDLE, then they're set and they don't have to learn UNIX in the
>> process.
>
> I agree. It looks like one good thing to do would be to build an
> installer that installs
> > I agree. If the 2.4.x installer were bundled with TigerPython24Fix
> > and some quick-start IDLE app into a single installer, that would be
> > great, and an improvement over the current situation. (And could it
> > please *not* have the word "fix" in the title?)
>
> It *is* a fix, which is
Bob Ippolito wrote:
> Currently, ActivePython on Mac OS X is almost exactly the same thing
> that we're going to be shipping with the universal build of 2.4.2. The
> differences will be:
>
> 1. They aren't shipping readline, we will
This matters quite a bit, I think.
> 2. We'll probably ship
> If we get them a double-clickable installer that gets them at least
> IDLE, then they're set and they don't have to learn UNIX in the process.
I agree. It looks like one good thing to do would be to build an
installer that installs a regular App that's just a wrapper around
IDLE (and uses the
Nice, thanks!
Bill
___
Pythonmac-SIG maillist - Pythonmac-SIG@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pythonmac-sig
On Feb 10, 2006, at 1:53 PM, Bob Ippolito wrote:
>
> On Feb 10, 2006, at 1:06 PM, Kevin Walzer wrote:
>
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Christopher Barker wrote:
>>> Louis Pecora wrote:
This seems to be where this argument goes: the user/newbies vs.
the
On Feb 10, 2006, at 1:06 PM, Kevin Walzer wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Christopher Barker wrote:
>> Louis Pecora wrote:
>>> This seems to be where this argument goes: the user/newbies vs. the
>>> developers.
>>
>> I don't think so. This entire conversation is abou
On Feb 10, 2006, at 1:00 PM, Nicholas Riley wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 12:37:55PM -0800, Christopher Barker wrote:
>> Yes, but it then puts the scripts in the weird bin directory
>> buried in
>> the Framework, and one extra step is one extra step too many.
>
> This definitely needs to be
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Christopher Barker wrote:
> Louis Pecora wrote:
>> This seems to be where this argument goes: the user/newbies vs. the
>> developers.
>
> I don't think so. This entire conversation is about supporting the
> newbies. The disagreements are about how
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 12:37:55PM -0800, Christopher Barker wrote:
> Yes, but it then puts the scripts in the weird bin directory buried in
> the Framework, and one extra step is one extra step too many.
This definitely needs to be a FAQ, at least, if not a changed default
in the Python framewor
Charles Hartman wrote:
> It seems to me (as *much* closer to a newbie than a developer) that
> simply recommending the download & install of Python 2.4.x not only
> wouldn't put a major obstacle in the way of beginners, but wouldn't
> seem to, either.
Exactly. It's not like anyone but Linux
Louis Pecora wrote:
> This seems to be where this argument goes: the user/newbies vs. the
> developers.
I don't think so. This entire conversation is about supporting the
newbies. The disagreements are about how best to do that.
> You shouldn't be forcing everyone to adopt a python system
> t
Bob Ippolito wrote:
>> Let's have py2app be a standard part of the 2.4 package. It'd be great
>> if the standard upgrade package had and did everything you need to get
>> started. I suggest easy-install as well.
>
> I'd prefer to wait on that until it's more mature.
Why? it's what we use now, and
Rodney Somerstein wrote:
> . It would be
> really nice to have a more basic introduction to what py2app actually
> does.
Why don't you write that, put it in the Wiki, then ask this list for
technical review. That's what Wikis are for, and I think often recent
newbies are the best people to wri
On Wed, 8 Feb 2006 20:29:34 PST
Bill Janssen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've made up a sample page, at
> http://bill.janssen.org/new-macpython-page.html.
>
> This is the kind of thing I'd like to see replace the page at
> http://www.python.org/download/download_mac.html.
>
> Bill
> ___
At 9:51 AM -0800 2/10/06, Bill Janssen wrote:
>The problem is that there are many kinds of "new users".
>
This is true. The trick, in my view, is to make sure to define terms
when they are first used. That way, the actual beginners have a
chance of following along and the more experienced "new u
Hi Bob,
On Feb 10, 2006, at 10:15 AM, Bob Ippolito wrote:
[snip]
> Do you really think that there is a large enough audience that would
> be willing to read pages of documentation, but not be willing to
> install anything?
Yes. (Though there shouldn't need to be several pages of docs.) Many
u
On Feb 10, 2006, at 10:44 AM, Bill Janssen wrote:
>>> A good entry page tries to speak usefully to all of these
>>> communities
>>> at the same time, without speaking down to any of them.
>>
>> Do you really think that there is a large enough audience that would
>> be willing to read pages of d
On Feb 10, 2006, at 10:02 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Feb 10, 2006, at 11:27 AM, Bob Ippolito wrote:
>
>>
>> On Feb 10, 2006, at 7:24 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Feb 9, 2006, at 1:32 PM, Kevin Walzer wrote:
If I'm a newbie, I'm going to go, "Huh?", then "shrug," and mo
> > A good entry page tries to speak usefully to all of these communities
> > at the same time, without speaking down to any of them.
>
> Do you really think that there is a large enough audience that would
> be willing to read pages of documentation, but not be willing to
> install anything?
On Feb 10, 2006, at 9:51 AM, Bill Janssen wrote:
>> You seem to have a good handle on what is needed to get new users
>> involved in working with Python on the Mac. Even some of the
>> questions that you list here might be a little too complex for new
>> users.
>
> The problem is that there are m
Argh. Right. Note to self: actually go check before asking stupid
questions.
- David
On 10-Feb-06, at 1:03 PM, Bob Ippolito wrote:
>
> On Feb 10, 2006, at 9:49 AM, David Warde-Farley wrote:
>
>>
>> On 10-Feb-06, at 12:39 PM, Bill Janssen wrote:
>>
> I think this would be a pretty good way
On Feb 10, 2006, at 9:49 AM, David Warde-Farley wrote:
>
> On 10-Feb-06, at 12:39 PM, Bill Janssen wrote:
>
I think this would be a pretty good way to start building a FAQ.
>>>
>>> There already is a FAQ, and it's been there for a very long
>>> time. We
>>> don't have to start building an
On Feb 10, 2006, at 11:27 AM, Bob Ippolito wrote:
>
> On Feb 10, 2006, at 7:24 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>
>> On Feb 9, 2006, at 1:32 PM, Kevin Walzer wrote:
>>> If I'm a newbie, I'm going to go, "Huh?", then "shrug," and move
>>> on to
>>> Realbasic. There needs to be something double-cl
> Problem with the official Mac-specific modules and documentation is
> there's quite of stuff in there that hasn't been correct/usable since
> OS 9. It's just that nobody's gotten around to dealing with
> it. Experienced users already know which bits to avoid, so there's not
> huge impetus to clea
> You seem to have a good handle on what is needed to get new users
> involved in working with Python on the Mac. Even some of the
> questions that you list here might be a little too complex for new
> users.
The problem is that there are many kinds of "new users".
There are experienced progra
On Feb 10, 2006, at 9:39 AM, Bill Janssen wrote:
>>> I think this would be a pretty good way to start building a FAQ.
>>
>> There already is a FAQ, and it's been there for a very long time. We
>> don't have to start building anything -- just link to the most
>> popular ones.
>
> Where the heck i
On 10-Feb-06, at 12:39 PM, Bill Janssen wrote:
>>> I think this would be a pretty good way to start building a FAQ.
>>
>> There already is a FAQ, and it's been there for a very long time. We
>> don't have to start building anything -- just link to the most
>> popular ones.
>
> Where the heck is
On Feb 10, 2006, at 3:14 AM, linda.s wrote:
> On 2/10/06, Bob Ippolito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> On Feb 10, 2006, at 2:55 AM, linda.s wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/10/06, Bob Ippolito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Feb 10, 2006, at 1:56 AM, linda.s wrote:
> If I installed some versi
> > I think this would be a pretty good way to start building a FAQ.
>
> There already is a FAQ, and it's been there for a very long time. We
> don't have to start building anything -- just link to the most
> popular ones.
Where the heck is it?
Bill
_
On Feb 10, 2006, at 7:24 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Feb 9, 2006, at 1:32 PM, Kevin Walzer wrote:
>> If I'm a newbie, I'm going to go, "Huh?", then "shrug," and move
>> on to
>> Realbasic. There needs to be something double-clickable there for a
>> newbie to use. PythonIDE, though it ha
On Feb 9, 2006, at 1:32 PM, Kevin Walzer wrote:
> If I'm a newbie, I'm going to go, "Huh?", then "shrug," and move on to
> Realbasic. There needs to be something double-clickable there for a
> newbie to use. PythonIDE, though it had many flaws, was useful this
> way.
> BTW, what happened to PyO
>> Alas, explicitly specifying the long path didn't work either. It
>> bombs on import of appscript:
Robert> Try
Robert> #!/usr/bin/env /usr/bin/pythonw
Cool! Works like a charm. Thanks...
Skip
___
Pythonmac-SIG maillist - Python
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>> #!/usr/bin/pythonw
>
> Bob> Sounds like you're using OS X 10.3. It shipped with pythonw as a
> Bob> shell script, not an executable.
>
> skip> Yes, thanks. Shoulda thought to actually look at
> skip> /usr/bin/pythonw...
>
> Alas, explicitl
Bill Janssen wrote:
> > 1. Link to the "Macintosh Library Module": A lot of that stuff will be
> > rendered obsolete the minute Bob releases the universal build of
> > MacPython. PythonIDE, Package Manager, etc.: not gonna be included. At a
> > minimum, you should note that this stuff is "legacy."
>>> #!/usr/bin/pythonw
Bob> Sounds like you're using OS X 10.3. It shipped with pythonw as a
Bob> shell script, not an executable.
skip> Yes, thanks. Shoulda thought to actually look at
skip> /usr/bin/pythonw...
Alas, explicitly specifying the long path didn't work eit
It seems to me (as *much* closer to a newbie than a developer) that
simply recommending the download & install of Python 2.4.x not only
wouldn't put a major obstacle in the way of beginners, but wouldn't
seem to, either. That one step isn't a problem -- if we can get to
the point where that
Bob Ippolito wrote:
>
> The largest issue is that you can't legally redistribute the Python
> interpreter that ships with Mac OS X, so you can't create standalone
> applications. Even if you could, it wouldn't have a chance of being
> backwards compatible with the way that Apple builds thing
>> #!/usr/bin/pythonw
Bob> Sounds like you're using OS X 10.3. It shipped with pythonw as a
Bob> shell script, not an executable.
Yes, thanks. Shoulda thought to actually look at /usr/bin/pythonw...
Skip
___
Pythonmac-SIG maillist -
On 2/10/06, Bob Ippolito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Feb 10, 2006, at 1:56 AM, linda.s wrote:
>
> > If I installed some version of python i do not like, how do i
> > remove them?
> > In windows, it is easy to uninstall them, but no idea about how to do
> > in Mac (just drag it to the the icon
On 2/10/06, Bob Ippolito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Feb 10, 2006, at 2:55 AM, linda.s wrote:
>
> > On 2/10/06, Bob Ippolito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Feb 10, 2006, at 1:56 AM, linda.s wrote:
> >>
> >>> If I installed some version of python i do not like, how do i
> >>> remove t
On Feb 10, 2006, at 2:55 AM, linda.s wrote:
> On 2/10/06, Bob Ippolito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> On Feb 10, 2006, at 1:56 AM, linda.s wrote:
>>
>>> If I installed some version of python i do not like, how do i
>>> remove them?
>>> In windows, it is easy to uninstall them, but no idea about
On Feb 10, 2006, at 1:56 AM, linda.s wrote:
> If I installed some version of python i do not like, how do i
> remove them?
> In windows, it is easy to uninstall them, but no idea about how to do
> in Mac (just drag it to the the icon of trashcan?)?
It depends on which version of Python it is a
If I installed some version of python i do not like, how do i remove them?
In windows, it is easy to uninstall them, but no idea about how to do
in Mac (just drag it to the the icon of trashcan?)?
Linda.
___
Pythonmac-SIG maillist - Pythonmac-SIG@python
71 matches
Mail list logo
