I guess you're right: by the time IronPython (or whatever the name will be) is production ready, everybody will have 2.0 on their machine. Right? I guess it's just another Microsoft way of saying: you must upgrade to 2.0. I don't like that tone. I like Python, I like the addition of .NET and I liked the way that IronPython *was* licensed.
-----Original Message----- From: Bob Ippolito [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: vrijdag 1 april 2005 6:48 To: Sriram Krishnan Cc: 'R.R. Sprinkhuizen'; users-ironpython.com@lists.ironpython.com Subject: Re: [IronPython] Renaming IronPythonConsole On Mar 31, 2005, at 11:34 PM, Sriram Krishnan wrote: >>> Me too, but very unhappy that it needs 2.0. Can't there be a 1.1 and >>> a 2.0 > version? > > I don't think that would be possible - IronPython makes heavy use of > 2.0 specific features such as Lightweight Code Generation Also, it's clearly not production material yet, so why would you need to use it on a legacy runtime? -bob _______________________________________________ users-ironpython.com mailing list users-ironpython.com@lists.ironpython.com http://lists.ironpython.com/listinfo.cgi/users-ironpython.com
