According the Bug 36834 of gcc, there is a mis-matching between mingw
and MSVC when a struct was returned by value from a C function.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36834
Should ctypes handle this situation automatically somehow?
A ctypes discussion on 2009:
http://thread
Aahz wrote:
> Dunno about "in time for the new year", but there is a new design that is
> supposedly in final stages of getting implemented. What's your hurry?
No hurry:
http://tinyurl.com/8d9ar
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
I thought I read here that a new website design was in the works for
python.org in time for the new year? Is that still true and of so,
anyone know what is it's status?
Thanks!
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Scott David Daniels wrote:
> [snip] The big trick is that you can specialize the interpreter for
> running _its_ input (a Python program), thus giving you a new
> interpreter that only runs your Python program -- a very specialized
> interpreter indeed.
>
Now THAT will be slick!
What is the curr
Greg Stein wrote:
> 50% "on"
> 100% "with"
>
Wow, that's great to know, thanks Greg!
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
So when *is* someone (either Guido himself or Google) going to
officially announce that Guido has moved to Google? If at all?
Also, it would be nice to know from Guido's perspective what, if any at
all, impact this will have on Python?
Maybe here? http://www.artima.com/weblogs/index.jsp?blogg
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> Bugs wrote:
>
>>New PEP: "Small is beautiful!" ;-)
>
>
> A PEP would have to be more elaborate than that;
> it best be accompanied with an implementation as well.
> Somebody has to do the work.
>
> Regards,
> Martin
&g
Thomas Heller wrote:
[snip]
>
> A PEP discussing the rationales would *really* be great.
My whole impetus for this thread was to minimize the size of Python
executables created with py2exe. Right now they tend to be rather
large, even for very small applications, as they include a bunch of
un
Have you tried the ActiveState version of Python?
http://www.activestate.com/Products/Download/Download.plex?id=ActivePython
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> Not only that (but also). In addition, it also contains modules that
> were previously implemented as separate .pyd files (_csv, _sre,
> _symtable, _winreg, datetime, mmap, parser).
>
[snip]
>
> I previously said that I would do such a thing if somebody provided a
> spe
Here's a more direct link:
http://www.manning.com/books/rappin
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
I believe I read in a relatively recent thread that the reason
python24.dll is so large compared to previous releases is that all the
language encodings are linked into the library?
Are there any plans for future releases to split the encodings out so
that, for example, if someone wanted to mak
ommunity is what makes it better.
I agree, it's still a great toolkit even with the bugs.
But think how much better a toolkit it would be with fewer bugs! =)
Thanks Paul
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
So Paul, are you saying there's a bug with the wxGrid control and if so,
do you know if there's been a bug-report submitted to the wxWidgets
and/or wxPython folks?
Or is this just the way the wxGrid control works?
Thanks!
Paul McNett wrote:
> Not so fast. I've found out that I had to do the fol
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I was wondering if people using wxPython found this book useful? Is it
> worth the money? Thanks
>
It might be better for Python folks to just wait for this book, due Jan
1, 2006:
http://www.manning.com/books/rappin
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1932394621/002-8046
Roger Binns wrote:
>
> It is possible to make the wxPython smaller by having more DLLs each with
> fewer widgets in it. That way you will only suck in the ones you use.
>
I find this VERY interesting Roger, I've been contemplating making such
a request to the maintainer of wxPython (when he ge
Hi Peter,
I just used the setup.py that comes in the singlefile/gui sample.
However, py2exe does still also require the msvcr71.dll runtime as well,
which is 340kb. Here it is, it's a bit lengthy:
# If run without args, build executables, in quiet mode.
if len(sys.argv) == 1:
sys.argv.appe
Peter Hansen wrote:
>
> The wxPython program below, py2exe'd on my machine (1.6GHz Pentium M),
> comes to only 12MB (2-3MB of which is Python itself), and takes 1-2
> seconds to load (actually less than one second after the first
> invocation following a fresh reboot).
>
And even 12MB seems h
Another page with up to date IronPython information:
http://www.gotdotnet.com/workspaces/workspace.aspx?id=ad7acff7-ab1e-4bcb-99c0-57ac5a3a9742
Cameron Laird wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, spiffo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> .
> .
>
This is great Jimmy and thanks. Py2exe is too handy of a project to let
fall into obsolescence. I especially appreciate your willingness to
work with other projects in developing synergies between them.
Thanks again.
Jimmy Retzlaff wrote:
> I am taking over the maintenance and support of py2ex
that everything seemed to work properly.
I'm not sure where the Python 2.4.2 installation put it's python24.dll?
Please let me know if you need additional details.
Thanks,
Bugs
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> Trent Mick wrote:
>
>>I suppose that is possible. Martin, does python-2.
Thanks Trent, you called it, it was an errant python24.dll left over
from an old ActiveState installation.
Trent Mick wrote:
[snip]
>
> It is possible that the python.org installer didn't overwrite the
> "python24.dll" in the system directory (C:\WINDOWS\system32). Try doing
> this:
>
[snip]
--
I downloaded the 2.4.2 Windows Binary Installer from python.org but when
I try to run python.exe I get the following in the console:
ActivePython 2.4.1 Build 247 (ActiveState Corp.) based on
Python 2.4.1 (#65, Jun 20 2005, 17:01:55) [MSC v.1310 32 bit (Intel)] on
win32
Type "
tency would be very beneficial. Perhaps then a Linux
version could be developed with an identical inferface.
Thomas Heller wrote:
> Bugs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>>Any luck on finding anyone to take over py2exe development Thomas?
>>It's a GREAT projec
Any luck on finding anyone to take over py2exe development Thomas? It's
a GREAT project and would be a shame to see it fall into obsolescence.
Thomas Heller wrote:
[snip]
>
> Is anyone interested in taking over the maintainance, documentation, and
> further development?
>
[snip]
--
http://mai
Thomas Heller wrote:
[snip]
>
> Is anyone interested in taking over the maintainance, documentation, and
> further development?
>
> Should py2exe be integrated into another, larger, package? Pywin32
> comes to mind, but also Philip Eby's setuptools (that's why I post to
> distutils-sig as well).
Steve M wrote:
[snip]
> * Dual packaging mode:
>* Single directory: build a directory containing an executable plus
> all
> the external binary modules (.dll, .pyd, .so) used by the program.
>* Single file: build a single executable file, totally
> self-contained,
> which runs without any
Thanks Frank, I appreciate the feedback.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
As a side question Frank, how was your experiences using wxPython for
your GUI?
Any regrets choosing wxPyton over another toolkit?
Was it very buggy?
How was it to work with in general?
Any other real-world wxPython feedback you have is appreciated.
Frank Millman wrote:
> I am writing a multi-use
As a big test of Thomas's excellent work with py2exe, I tried to create
a single-file executable of the wxPython demo (demo.py).
The executable was built (5.3MB) but gets a C++ runtime error when I try
to execute?
Here's the log:
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "demo.py", line 4, in ?
Thomas Heller wrote:
> Changes in this release:
>
> * py2exe can now bundle binary extensions and dlls into the
> library-archive or the executable itself. This allows to
> finally build real single-file executables.
>
> The bundled dlls and pyds are loaded at runtime by so
If you're already fluent in other programming language(s) [sounds like
you are], then this is decent and available free online:
http://www.diveintopython.org/
placid wrote:
>
> Sometimes when you concentrate on complicated problems your thinking of
> a complicated solution and not a simple one
If your users already have Python installed then you could just create a
self-extracting, self-executing .exe that contains only your scripts and
necessary files. I belive many of the popular zip utilities have the
ability to do this. The free info-zip does this as well:
http://www.info-zip.o
Cliff Wells wrote:
>
> But how stable is GTK on systems such as Windows and OS/X? That has
> been what has kept me from using it. Most GTK apps I've used on Windows
> (including the venerable GIMP) are nowhere near as stable as their Linux
> counterparts (although this may not be entirely the fa
34 matches
Mail list logo
