[Pythonmac-SIG] Name that Python

[Jack Jansen]

>>> Or could we bite the bullet for the 2.3 release and call the 
>>> old beast MacOS9Python and the new one simply MacPython?)
>>
>> How about MacPython and ClassicPython? That flips the 
>> executable-format-designation onto the other beast. 
>> ClassicPython also sounds a bit more historical.
>
> I like these names.

So do I. I think the fact that "Classic" in the name might lead 
people to believe it has to run under the classic environment 
isn't so much of a problem: we can explain it in the first 
sentence in the readme. Moreover, we'll steer OSX users to 
MacPython anyway.

I am a bit worried about there not being a "Mac" in the name, 
though, so I think I would go for ClassicMacPython or 
MacPythonClassic. Probably the latter, because it sorts after 
MacPython, which may be a good thing for people searching 
versiontracker and such.

> And to answer Jack's other question with a question: Will the 
> 2.3 MachoPython be feature-compatible with MacPython? That is, 
> will it contain the IDE and all other goodies that users expect 
> to be in MacPython? If it does I'm all for renaming MachoPython 
> to MacPython.

IDE and the Carbon modules are going to be available. 
BuildApplet is going to be available. BuildApplication I'm not 
sure about yet[*]. Numeric and PIL are probably not oging to be 
included. At least: not by me[**].

[*] If someone is looking for a project: see if you can get 
BuildApplication-like functionality working for MachoPython. 
BuildApplet already works for MachoPython (if you run from CVS), 
the module finder shouldn't be a problem and all modules can be 
compiled into .pyc files to be stored in the .app bundle too 
(probably beside __main__.pyc is as goos a place as any other, 
but packages may need a bit of extra work). The remaining 
problem is stuffing Python.framework into the .app bundle. This 
should be doable, if I understand the Apple documentation 
correctly, by putting it in PrivateFrameworks or 
SharedFrameworks or some such place, but I've never tried this.

[**] If someone is looking for a project: a "batteries included" 
MacPython 2.3 distribution would be nice. This should include at 
least the stuff that was included with MacPythonClassic 
(Tkinter, PIL, Numeric, probably img), but could also include 
Cocoa, maybe PyOpenGL, maybe wxPython, maybe documentation, .... 
Actually, what would be nifty is not so much a distribution but 
a script or set of scripts that can be run to easily create such 
a distribution.
--
- Jack Jansen        <Jack.Jansen@oratrix.com>        
http://www.cwi.nl/~jack -
- If I can't dance I don't want to be part of your revolution -- 
Emma Goldman -