Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Clarify why we recommend entry points #51

Closed
pfmoore opened this issue Apr 20, 2014 · 5 comments
Closed

Clarify why we recommend entry points #51

pfmoore opened this issue Apr 20, 2014 · 5 comments

Comments

@pfmoore
Copy link
Member

pfmoore commented Apr 20, 2014

Add a bit more details on why entry points are recommended rather than .py scripts or batch files. Include a mention of the limitations of PATHEXT on Windows and the difficulty for single-platform developers of maintaining robust cross-platform solutions.

@qwcode
Copy link
Contributor

qwcode commented May 15, 2014

I thought the sentence we have now in the tutorial was pretty good: "the recommended approach to achieve cross-platform compatibility, is to use "console_script" entry points that register your script interfaces, and let the toolchain handle the work of turning these interfaces into actual scripts. "

@pfmoore
Copy link
Member Author

pfmoore commented May 15, 2014

Yeah, the problem that triggered this comment is that it doesn't explain why we recommend it. Unix guys don't have a problem, because scripts with an appropriate #! line are first-class citizens, but on Windows anything other than an actual .exe file will cause problems somewhere along the line.

I'll try and write some words.

@pfmoore
Copy link
Member Author

pfmoore commented May 15, 2014

See #54

@qwcode
Copy link
Contributor

qwcode commented May 15, 2014

merged #54, closing

@qwcode qwcode closed this as completed May 15, 2014
@pfmoore
Copy link
Member Author

pfmoore commented May 15, 2014

Thanks!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants