On Sep 9, 2015, at 21:32, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 1:25 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Nathaniel Smith writes:
That seems more productive in the short run than trying to
get everyone to stop typing "pip" :-).
FWIW, I did as soon as I realized python_i_want_to_install -m pip
worked; it's obvious that it DTRTs, and I felt like I'd just dropped
the hammer I'd been whacking my head with.
If the problem with this is the verbosity of it ("python -m pip
install packagename" - five words), would there be benefit in blessing
pip with some core interpreter functionality, allowing either:

$ python install packagename


$ python -p packagename

to do the one most common operation, installation? (And since it's new
syntax, it could default to --upgrade, which would match the behaviour
of other package managers like apt-get.)

Since the base command is "python", it automatically uses the same
interpreter and environment as you otherwise would. It's less verbose
than bouncing through -m. It gives Python the feeling of having an
integrated package manager, which IMO wouldn't be a bad thing.

Of course, that wouldn't help with the 2.7 people, but it might allow
the deprecation of the 'pip' wrapper. Would it actually help?

What about leaving the pip wrapper, but having it display a banner telling people to use python -m pip (and maybe suggesting they add an alias to their profile, if not Windows) and then do its thing as it currently does. (Maybe with some way to suppress the message if people want to say "I know what I'm doing; if my PATH is screwy I'll fix it".)

If we also add the python -p, it can instead suggest that if version >= (3, 6).

That seems like an easier way to get the message out there than trying to convince everyone to spread the word everywhere they teach anyone, or deprecating it and leaving people wondering what they're supposed to do instead.

Search Discussions

Discussion Posts


Follow ups

Related Discussions



site design / logo © 2019 Grokbase