[docs] Bring Doc/using/windows up to date (issue 20265)

kathleen at kweaver.org kathleen at kweaver.org
Sun Mar 23 16:08:39 CET 2014


I've fixed the minor changes, but am going to wait on the major ones
(removing parts of the documentation), until others have agreed.


http://bugs.python.org/review/20265/diff/11405/Doc/using/windows.rst
File Doc/using/windows.rst (right):

http://bugs.python.org/review/20265/diff/11405/Doc/using/windows.rst#newcode104
Doc/using/windows.rst:104: Python 3.4, the installer has an option to
set that up for you.
On 2014/03/23 11:36:40, loewis wrote:
> It's actually available since 3.3.

Done.

http://bugs.python.org/review/20265/diff/11405/Doc/using/windows.rst#newcode106
Doc/using/windows.rst:106: At the "Customize Python 3.3" screen, an
option called
On 2014/03/23 11:36:40, loewis wrote:
> If you want to update the version number, this would be the place.

Done.

http://bugs.python.org/review/20265/diff/11405/Doc/using/windows.rst#newcode175
Doc/using/windows.rst:175: Executing scripts without the Python launcher
What do we want to do on this?
 
On 2014/03/23 11:36:40, loewis wrote:
> Why do we need this section? It's not possibly anymore to not install
the Python
> launcher. The use case of binding .py to the no-console executable
might be
> useful, but then the executable is pyw.exe, not pythonw.exe.
> 
> There *could* be a use case of binding .py to a specific version,
however, I'd
> rather suggest to use launcher syntax in the script (e.g. #!python3.3)
to
> achieve that.

http://bugs.python.org/review/20265/diff/11405/Doc/using/windows.rst#newcode193
Doc/using/windows.rst:193: assoc .py=Python.File
Again, consensus?

On 2014/03/23 11:36:40, loewis wrote:
> Hmm. In the standard installation, .py is already associated with
Python.File,
> so this step is unnecessary. If the objective is to associate .py with
> pythonw.exe, I'd rather do
> 
> assoc .py=Python.NoConFile
> 
> and not change the Open path for Python.File at all. But maybe I'm
missing
> something.

http://bugs.python.org/review/20265/


More information about the docs mailing list