On 01Mar2016 1137, David Cournapeau wrote:
If you want to patch your own distribution to move the paths you are
welcome to do that - there is only one string literal in getpathp.c
that needs to be updated - but it's not a requirement and I
deliberately avoided making a recommendat
On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 5:46 PM, Steve Dower wrote:
> On 01Mar2016 0524, Paul Moore wrote:
>
>> On 1 March 2016 at 11:37, David Cournapeau wrote:
>>
>>> I am not clear about 3., especially on what should be changed. I know
>>> that
>>> for 2.7, we need to change PC\getpathp.c for sys.path, but ar
On 01Mar2016 0524, Paul Moore wrote:
On 1 March 2016 at 11:37, David Cournapeau wrote:
I am not clear about 3., especially on what should be changed. I know that
for 2.7, we need to change PC\getpathp.c for sys.path, but are there any
other places where the registry is used by python itself ?
On 1 March 2016 at 11:37, David Cournapeau wrote:
> I am not clear about 3., especially on what should be changed. I know that
> for 2.7, we need to change PC\getpathp.c for sys.path, but are there any
> other places where the registry is used by python itself ?
My understanding from the earlier
Hi Steve,
I have looked into this PEP to see what we need to do on Enthought side of
things. I have a few questions:
1. Is it recommended to follow this for any python version we may provide,
or just new versions (3.6 and above). Most of our customers still heavily
use 2.7, and I wonder whether i
I've posted an updated version of this PEP that should soon be visible at
https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0514.
Leaving aside the fact that the current implementation of Python relies on
*other* information in the registry (that is not specified in this PEP), I'm
still looking for feedback
