Python Win installations and PYTHONPATH Confusion (WAS: Re: Python Path Blues)

[Maan Hamze]

"Jeff Shannon" <jeff at ccvcorp.com> wrote in message

>OTOH, PythonWin and the
> win32all extensions are by definition non-portable.

I use PythonWin not for the win32 extensions but because I like the IDE and
what it has to offer.  Writing regular scripts using PythonWin is portable
in this case.

>Therefore, it seems to make
> sense that they behave like good Windows programs, and use the registry to
store
> their settings.

Ok!  but in this case, there is a lack of consistency.  The case as is:  how
come that the libs that come with pythonwin (regular python libs, not only
the ones that are win32 specific) depend heavily on the registry but the
ones that are added later by the user can not depend solely on the reistry
but on PYTHONWIN setting in environment?  This is disturbing.  Please note
that Pythonwin and Python are still reading the PYTHONWIN setting in the
environment but they do not create it.  The user has to create it.  And I
believe that these issues should have a priority - since these are
infrastructure, and the lack of good documentation discourages starters, and
makes them look at other languages/jokes like Ruby (with all due respect to
Ruby, but it is a joke language :O  ).

 >Indeed, some parts *require* using the registry--like, say
> PythonCOM.

Of course, and I got no qualm about using the registry in this case.  Those
who use PythonCOM are in windows territory.  but to use standard libraries:
the treatment should be uniform.  It is unacceptable that third party libs
has to go into a setting in the environment while other libs has to have a
special place in the registry for no other reason except that they came with
Pythonwin or Python for win.  I am talking here about the regular standard
libs.
Maan