[Ironpython-users] Work Item 19249

Dino Viehland dinov at microsoft.com
Wed Feb 15 03:27:48 CET 2012

If it's an option to load the assemblies then users may as well just add the code to load it themselves.  I think the point of fixing the bug was reducing the frustration factor when first using the hosting APIs and having it just work.  So I'm fine w/ just closing it.

From: Slide [mailto:slide.o.mix at gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 5:39 PM
To: Dino Viehland
Cc: ironpython-users at python.org
Subject: Re: [Ironpython-users] Work Item 19249

I was planning on making it an option to load assemblies, the current behavior would be the default. I am thinking it would be best to leave as-is though. Either that, or allow passing in assemblies to CreateEngine to add references to.
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 6:06 PM, Dino Viehland <dinov at microsoft.com<mailto:dinov at microsoft.com>> wrote:
I'm fine w/ either, but if it's an option it should be an option which disables adding the references for scenarios like Markus wants (otherwise there really is no reason to do it).

From: ironpython-users-bounces+dinov=microsoft.com at python.org<mailto:microsoft.com at python.org> [mailto:ironpython-users-bounces+dinov<mailto:ironpython-users-bounces%2Bdinov>=microsoft.com at python.org<mailto:microsoft.com at python.org>] On Behalf Of Slide
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 4:02 PM
To: ironpython-users at python.org<mailto:ironpython-users at python.org>
Subject: [Ironpython-users] Work Item 19249

I'd like to get the thoughts of the community on work item 19249 [1]. I am thinking we want to either make it an option, or just leave it as is. I prefer the latter.



[1] http://ironpython.codeplex.com/workitem/19249

Website: http://earl-of-code.com

Website: http://earl-of-code.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/ironpython-users/attachments/20120215/aec76b2b/attachment.html>

More information about the Ironpython-users mailing list