[GRASS-dev] [GRASS-SVN] r60679 - grass/trunk/lib/python/script

[Glynn Clements]

Martin Landa wrote:

> Cool, if you are reverting other attempts you could probably find some
> time to implement it even it's not "exactly rocket science". The
> discussion about this topic has probably tens of e-mails with
> guessable result.  You were proposed bat-files at the beginning, no
> consensus, no other way. Never ending "discussions" with no result.

Are you referring to this thread, or the "Handling of Python scripts
on MS Windows" thread from the last couple of months.

The latter concluded (in spite of my initial resistance) that we would
probably need to use batch files to deal with the fact that we can't
rely upon the .py extension being associated with the correct
interpreter.

If scripts are invoked via batch files, there's no point in setting
shell=True, as batch files don't need it, and it would result in the
shell's argument-parsing being applied a second time.

The bottom line is that batch files need to be generated, they aren't
being generated yet, and intermediate stop-gap measures (i.e. 
shell=True) don't actually get us any closer to the end result (they
just give that impression, provided that you aren't paying too much
attention).

-- 
Glynn Clements <glynn at gclements.plus.com>