RE: [Pythoncard-users] six blind men describe the beast - Python 2.2 requirement

Realistically, by the time we're at a real release, Python 2.2 should be
wide-spread. I personally hope (and have seen some signs) that people will
move pretty rapidly towards 2.2.

As for ActiveState... I too confess a weakness for the convenience of the
ActiveState releases of Python, although I have considerable qualms about
their licensing of it and their co-opting of at least one PD software
product entirely. PSF Python now has a nice installer, and for our project,
I don't know that AS Python adds anything (unless PythonWin apps and Windows
Scripting Host compatibility are a goal).

Actually, this does bring up the issue of what the total software context of
PythonCard will be: aside from Python itself and it's attendant libraries
etc, what other components should be considered part of the base? And, aside
from that agreed base, what's the mechanism for describing/defining
(possibly optional) add-on components?

Some ideas:
	* Something equivalent to Perl::DBI to provide "product neutral" database
interfacing. I think there's something analogous to that for Python already.
I'd like us to avoid PyGress, MySqlPython etc. without precluding the use of
those databases by those who chose to use them.
	* Avoid "free for non-commercial use only" products.

Dave LeBlanc

> -----Original Message-----
> From: pyt...@li...
> [mailto:pyt...@li...]On Behalf Of Kevin
> Altis
> Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 14:12
> To: pyt...@li...
> Subject: RE: [Pythoncard-users] six blind men describe the beast -
> Python 2.2 requirement
>
>
> > From: Dan Shafer
> >
> > >  Ditto for Python one would assume. Actually, I suggest using
> > Python 2.2 as
> > >  the initial target - the unification of the class hierarchy is
> > just too good
> > >  to pass up. (Frankly, I think this was a big enough change in
> > the language
> > >  to warrant a full bump to 3.0, but so far Guido hasn't sought
> > my counsel ;).
> > >  One wonders what's in store for Python 3.0.)
> >
> > I completely concur. The class stuff in 2.2 has moved the language a
> > LOT closer to a "pure" object model. I thought it should also be
> > called 3.0 and I too wonder at what Guido must have in mind for
> > _that_ release!
> >
> > But for PythonCard, I think a 2.2 target is a solid idea.
>
> I hesitate to require Python 2.2 for the current prototype, 2.2
> is just too
> new. I've been waiting for a solid ActiveState release of 2.2, but perhaps
> it is time I just went with the standard distribution? I have no problem
> with requiring 2.2 for the first real alpha which is not too far
> off, maybe
> a month or so before that's started? The changes in 2.2
> definitely will help
> in cleaning up the current design.
>
> I'm just speculating at this point.
>
> Anyone writing code should make note of 2.2 features they use, so we at
> least know where it would be required. You can add asserts at the top of
> your modules for the features you require.
>
> ka
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pythoncard-users mailing list
> Pyt...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pythoncard-users
>