[Ping Python maintainer]: enhancement request

[Christopher Faylor]

On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 03:15:52PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
>On 01 May 2007 14:59, Charles Wilson wrote:
>>Because python is a command interpreter,

>>Similarly, sh.exe
>
>I think these are two very strong arguments in favour.

python.exe isn't anything like the interactive shell that people use on
a day to day basis and simply stating that it is doesn't mean that it is.

The only reason that I can see for making a copy would be to support the
use of python in a .bat file.  Otherwise you could always just do
python<TAB> from the command line.

>I note that we already (appear to?) do the same for perl.

Ok.  I agree that is an argument in favor since I don't recall many complaints
about perl.  It is a simple copy though, AFAICT.  I've registered my objections
now and I'll leave the decision to the maintainer.

>(/me remembers back to the insane gyrations I had to go through a
>couple of years ago when I had to setup makefiles for my clients who
>wanted to invoke them from cmd.exe using --win32 and have them work on
>systems that could have either cygwin python or active python or both
>and they could come in any order in the path....  <shudder>)

This isn't really relevant to the discussion since the cygwin version of
make wouldn't have any problem with symlinks.

cgf

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/