[Python-ideas] alternative-implementation friendly changes to Python Launcher for Windows

[Vernon D. Cole]

A new issue was recently raised on the IronPython group addressing the idea
of including a copy of the *Python Launcher for Windows* in the IronPython
binary distribution.  http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0397/

I would like to get feedback from this group, also, before opening a work
item for the suggestion.  Please add any comments or suggestions you may
have.

Here is a partial clip from our discussion...

vernondcole <http://www.codeplex.com/site/users/view/vernondcole> wrote Fri
> at 2:32 AM
> I made a clone of the git version of PLW to look this idea over. It is a
> smallish C++ program and should not be too hard to patch to make
> alternate-implementation friendly. The problem today is that it is CPython
> specific and searches the Windows registry to determine which versions of
> Python are present. Alternate implementations are supported only using
> entries in the py.ini file and setting the #! line in your source code
> approprietly. (Which works great. I even have mine launching perl scripts,
> just to proove that it can.)
>
> I propose adding two features to PLW.
>
> 1) extend the first command-line switch to also pick items from the py.ini
> file. I would like to type:
> py -ipy myprogram.py
> and have the command associated with "ipy" in my py.ini file executed.
>
> 2) PLW should have (in py.ini) a [default] section identifying which
> command in the [commands] section should be run in the absence of a
> command-line switch.
>
> Alternate implementations should then install (or modify) py.ini to
> support their interpreter.
>
> The extended PLW version ought to be backported to the CPython
> distribution, so that any implementation of Python will work. I don't think
> that the CPython group would object.
>
> Note 1: I have not compared to make sure the stand-alone PLW is identical
> with the Python 3.3 version.
> Note 2: We need to make sure that PLW will work correctly even if no
> CPython versions are present.
> Note 3: I fear that I have just volunteered to write the patch. Is someone
> else out there willing? It's been a very long time since I wrote commercial
> quality C code.
>
> jdhardy <http://www.codeplex.com/site/users/view/jdhardy> wrote Fri at
> 5:33 AM
>  Sounds good. I remember from the original PLW discussion they want it to
> work for other implementations but weren't sure what would be needed. It
> sounds like you're making that list. :)
>
> It's probably worth opening bugs on the Python tracker describing what
> needs to change, since it's not IronPython specific. If you don't feel
> comfortable writing the code perhaps someone over there can, or at least
> review the code for you.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/attachments/20140323/d8411396/attachment.html>