[Python-Dev] Python launcher command line usage (Was: 3.2.1 encoding surprise)

[Terry Reedy]

On 7/20/2011 7:55 PM, Mark Hammond wrote:
> On 21/07/2011 4:38 AM, Terry Reedy wrote:
>
>> Many installers first make an organization directory and then an app
>> directory within that. This annoys me sometimes when they only have one
>> app to ever install, but is useful when there might really be multiple
>> directories, as in our case. (Ditto for start menu entries.) This is
>> what python should have done a decade ago.

> I disagree. If we followed that advice we would also be in "\Program
> Files".

That is not what I suggested. I said let the use pick.

> I have no problem with multiple Python versions installed
> directly off the root, especially given most users probably have a very
> small number of such installations. I think Python being a developer
> tool rather than a user app is a reasonable justification for that (and
> the justification used when the existing scheme was decided)

I put the multiple installations and several other directories into 
/programs. On my next machine, on order, I will use /devel.

>  > The two proposals
>> overlap but are not mutually exclusive. For future pythons, 'python33'
>> is easier to remember and type than 'py -v 3.3' or whatever the proposed
>> encantation is.
>
> 'py -3.3' - less chars to type than 'python33' and with no need to have
> every Python directory on your PATH.

My proposal, as I clearly said, was for EXACTLY ONE directory to be 
added to PATH. In spite of Microsoft making is damned difficult for 
users to edit PATH, (and deleted programs not deleting their entries) I 
added 'C:/programs;'. I copied python32/python as py32 and 
python27/python as py27. Those are even fewer characters to type (4 
versus 7). Now I can click a 'Command Prompt' icon and enter 'py32 -m 
test.regrtest' and it works without cd-ing to /programs/python32. Of 
course, I will have to re-copy with every install, which is why I would 
like something like this as part of installs.


> IMO it is also simple enough that
> people will remember it fairly easily.

py32 is even easier to remember.

> Also, the launcher supports the ability to select either the 32 or 64bit
> implementation - so maybe 'python33.exe' isn't really good enough and
> should reflect the bittedness?

Like py32-6? If I install both Pythons on my new 64 bit machine, I will 
think about it, though I have no need for both now.

>> A python directory also gives a sensible (though optional) place to put
>> other interpreters and even python-based apps. The launcher does not.
>
> What other interpreters? IMO it doesn't make sense to have IronPython,
> jython etc be installed there. Ditto for apps - especially given most
> apps tend to be tied to a subset of all possible Python versions.

If I install pypy, /programs is exactly where I would put it until I 
somehow discovered that to be a problem. Its startup could be copied as 
pp26 or something.


My idea may be not so good for general use, even though is now solves my 
problems, but please criticize what I said, allowing for obvious 
modifications like py32 instead of python32, and not a strawman that is 
wildly different.

-- 
Terry Jan Reedy