On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 10:07 PM, Greg Ewing
wrote:
> Seems to me the only kind of IDE that it makes sense to
> ship with Python is one that is written in Python and
> maintained by the core developers. Anything else is best
> left as a third party package for download by those
> who want to use i
On 11 Nov, 2009, at 2:48, anatoly techtonik wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 6:44 PM, Ronald Oussoren
> wrote:
>>
>> What's so bad about IDLE that you'd like to replace it?
>
> That was exactly my previous question. You don't use IDLE either, so
> why not to replace it with something that you
On 2009-11-10, at 22:17, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> If that imaginary editor has lots of build dependencies that make
> it really difficult to use it, I would be opposed to including it.
> If it requires one library that is typically already available on
> a Linux system, it would be fine with me.
s/
On 2009-11-10, at 22:07, Greg Ewing wrote:
> So, I'd say that, like democracy, [IDLE is] not very good, but
> it's better than any of the alternatives. :-)
Speaking purely as a Python user, I am very happy that IDLE is part of the
Python distribution. Personally, I use and like emacs too much, a
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
If that imaginary editor has lots of build dependencies that make
it really difficult to use it, I would be opposed to including it.
If it requires one library that is typically already available on
a Linux system, it would be fine with me.
If I manage to get PyGUI into
> Does that mean even if authors of some imaginary editor agree to
> incorporate their code into Python, the framework that it is built
> upon will have to be incorporated into Python also (and eventually
> abandoned at original location)?
It depends. It should work the same way as IDLE: it's ok t
anatoly techtonik wrote:
why not to replace it with something that you can actually use, with
something that is at least extensible? So people will be interested to
learn and contribute.
IDLE is written in Python, so it's about as extensible
as you can get.
Seems to me the only kind of IDE th
anatoly techtonik writes:
> Does that mean even if authors of some imaginary editor agree to
> incorporate their code into Python, the framework that it is built
> upon will have to be incorporated into Python also (and eventually
> abandoned at original location)?
I would assume so. How els
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 10:49 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>
> This is not how it works. We cannot incorporate something into Python
> without explicit consent and support from the author(s). So for any
> editor to be incorporated as a replacement (along with all libraries
> it depends on) we woul
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 9:26 PM, Michael Foord
wrote:
>
>> Then there will be another issue - all editors are based upon some
>> frameworks - I didn't see any popular cross-platform GUI toolkits in
>> Python, so we will inevitably face the need to replace Tkinter with
>> other default GUI toolkit.
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 6:44 PM, Ronald Oussoren wrote:
>
> What's so bad about IDLE that you'd like to replace it?
That was exactly my previous question. You don't use IDLE either, so
why not to replace it with something that you can actually use, with
something that is at least extensible? So p
> If we filter list of http://wiki.python.org/moin/PythonEditors by
> language/license/framework, we will be able to see if there is any
> suitable open source Python code to replace IDLE's.
This is not how it works. We cannot incorporate something into Python
without explicit consent and support
anatoly techtonik wrote:
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 12:10 AM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
Anatoly's question is actually a fair one for python-dev - we're the
ones that *ship* Idle, so it is legitimate to ask our reasons for
continuing to do so.
OTOH, the second (or, rather, third) questio
On 10 Nov, 2009, at 17:20, anatoly techtonik wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 12:10 AM, "Martin v. Löwis"
> wrote:
>>>
>>> Anatoly's question is actually a fair one for python-dev - we're the
>>> ones that *ship* Idle, so it is legitimate to ask our reasons for
>>> continuing to do so.
>>
>>
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 12:10 AM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>>
>> Anatoly's question is actually a fair one for python-dev - we're the
>> ones that *ship* Idle, so it is legitimate to ask our reasons for
>> continuing to do so.
>
> OTOH, the second (or, rather, third) question (does anybody think i
15 matches
Mail list logo
