On Mar 17, 2006, at 12:40 AM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> Fredrik Lundh wrote:
>> I don't think many people embed setup.py scripts, so alternative
>> (e) would pro-
>> bably cause the least problems:
>>
>> e) sys.executable contains the full path to the program used
>> to invoke
>> this
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
> I don't think many people embed setup.py scripts, so alternative (e) would
> pro-
> bably cause the least problems:
>
> e) sys.executable contains the full path to the program used to invoke
> this interpreter instance, or None if this could not be determined.
It s
Fred L. Drake, Jr. wrote:
> Fredrik Lundh wrote:
> > d) If Python was started from a standard Python interpreter,
>
> My understanding matches Guido's description, so I'm not sure any changes are
> needed.
the problem with that is that your understanding doesn't match the
implementation
(wh
On Thu, 2006-03-16 at 12:02 +0100, Fredrik Lundh wrote:
> a) sys.executable points to the executable that was used to load the
> Python interpreter library/dll.
>
> this use is supported by the docstring and the implementation, and is
> quite
> common in the wild. an application
Fredrik Lundh schrieb:
>how about this alternative ? (extended (b)).
>
>d) If Python was started from a standard Python interpreter,
>sys.executable contains the full path to this interpreter. If not,
>or if the path could not be determined, sys.executable is set to
>None.
>
>
At 07:40 PM 3/16/2006 +0100, Fredrik Lundh wrote:
>Looks like I might have to withdraw my (d) proposal, and, once again, suggest
>that we stick to the "GetProgramFullPath" sense, as implemented, and add a
>new variable for the originally intended but not really implemented "GetInter-
>preterPath" s
> > > a) sys.executable points to the executable that was used to load the
> > > Python interpreter library/dll.
> > >
> > > this use is supported by the docstring and the implementation, and is
> > > quite
> > > common in the wild. an application using this interpretation may
Th
> Fredrik Lundh wrote:
> > a) sys.executable points to the executable that was used to load the
> > Python interpreter library/dll.
> >
> > this use is supported by the docstring and the implementation, and is
> > quite
> > common in the wild. an application using this interpreta
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> Can you say more about the motivation for wanting this reinterpreted?
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
> d) If Python was started from a standard Python interpreter,
My understanding matches Guido's description, so I'm not sure any changes are
needed. Since an embedding appl
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
> the definition of sys.executable is a bit unclear, something that has led to
> incompatible use in deployed code.
>
> the docstring for sys.executable says "pathname of this Python interpreter",
> which can be interpreted as either
>
> a) sys.executable points to the ex
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> For finding related files, sys.exec_prefix and sys.prefix should be used
except that they're defined in terms of where the standard library is:
prefix -- prefix used to find the Python library
exec_prefix -- prefix used to find the machine-specific Python librar
When I added this my intention was a mixture of (b) and (c) -- I
wasn't thinking of situations where there was a difference. (If you
remember Python's very early history, embedding wasn't something I had
anticipated -- hence the "Great Renaming".)
The use that I had in mind does things like os.sys
12 matches
Mail list logo
