[Python-3000] Namespaces are one honking great idea -- let's do more of those!
Stephen J. Turnbull
stephen at xemacs.org
Mon Feb 4 12:22:04 CET 2008
Marcin ‘Qrczak’ Kowalczyk writes:
> Dnia 03-02-2008, N o godzinie 10:24 +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull pisze:
> > I don't see any need to shorten "python3.0" to "python3".
> There is a need. Using #!/usr/bin/python3.0 would break as soon as
> python3.1 is released, while #!/usr/bin/python3 would be fine, at
> least in the next few years.
First of all, under current policy, installing Python 3.1 would not
uninstall or overwrite Python 3.0, so nothing "breaks" when the user
uses #!/usr/bin/python3.0. On the contrary, Python 3.1 itself may be
buggy. I do not think is it appropriate for the Python installer to
make that decision for the user by creating a link to the most recent
Second, the point here is not whether any given user has such a need.
I may disagree with your reasoning above, but you apparently feel such
a need, and that's good enough for me. I have no objection if you
make a link python3 -> python3.0.
What I see no need for is a policy statement *by Python* that there
"should" be a "python3" link, or which python3.x is should point to.
I don't think that Python providing a simple tool to help the user do
it is a good idea, either, because most OS distributions already
provide them, and they tend to be rather obnoxious about "rogue" users
who do it by hand or use 3d party (including upstream) tools to do it.
More information about the Python-3000