On Fri, 2008-12-05 at 02:10 +0100, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote: > > Since the source code is incompatible, I was expecting the Python > > executable to have a new name such as 'python3' > > It does: the executable is called python3.0. > > > or for the default > > source code filename to change to '.py3' or something. > > Such a proposal would be rejected. In a few years from now, Python 2 > will be gone, and we would be stuck with an ugly file extension > (similar to how \windows\system is now an empty directory, and > \windows\system32 actually contains the 64-bit binaries on x64)- > > Regards, > Martin
I have to agree with Terry; installing the released python-3.0.msi results in an executable named 'python.exe' in the filesystem. I have not built it yet, but I assume the *NIX package results in a 'python' executable file. For a machine that runs existing Python 2.x applications, what should be in the PATH variable? For *NIX machines, will 'python' be placed into /usr/bin? If so, then the Python scripts that start out with a shebang like the following will have difficulty. #!/usr/bin/python #!/usr/bin/env python Has there been any guidance issued? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
