[IronPython] 0.7.4 doesn't allow more than one IronPythonConsole...

[Anthony Tarlano]

Timothy,

Yes the pollution is really a problem.

You see in CPython the .pyc files are at least contained to the package 
directory where the modules live, thus they follow the pigeon-hole principle 
(one-to-one).

The current release puts at the very least 6 files ( site.{exe, pdb}, 
snippets.{exe,pdb}, <modulefile.py>.{exe,pdb}) upon a command like "
IronPythonConsole.exe modulefile.py" in every directory that you use it... 
And if you are like me and are using the Lib directory of stdlibs from 
Python-2.3.5 you get types.{exe, pdb}, os.{exe, pdb}, etc.. Stop the 
madness!!

Anthony




On 5/4/05, Timothy Fitz <firemoth at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On 5/4/05, Anthony Tarlano <mailinglist.account at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I filed a bug as usual, but maybe you should consider a 0.7.4.1<http://0.7.4.1>release
> > fixing this and the *[exe,pdb] file pollution problem asap
> 
> Is the exe "file pollution problem" really a problem? Conceptually,
> CPython and IronPython are doing the same thing here. Step 1 is
> compile to bytecode, CPython generates .pyc files, IronPython
> generates exe files (that are CLR code). Step 2 is run with a virtual
> machine. On a windows machine, python associates with .pyc and .py
> files, so both the pyc and exe files are "runnable", they both have
> the problem that an unsuspecting person might unintentionally run
> them, however exe files are more tempting to the average user. I think
> functionally that narrows the difference between CPython and
> Ironpython down to file extension names and their associated icons,
> no?
> 
> Are there any plans to change this? If so to what? My initial thought
> was generate dlls, but that loses the double-click to run
> functionality.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/ironpython-users/attachments/20050504/66ae5075/attachment.html>