On Thursday 30 March 2006 10:31, Brett Cannon wrote: > > I don't have a problem with reorganising the standard library, > > but what's the motivation for moving everything under a new root? > > Is it just to allow people to unambigiously get hold of something > > from the stdlib, rather than following the normal search path? > > Yes, it's to make it obvious the module came from the stdlib > instead of another package. In that case, I don't see why this couldn't be added to import, rather than moving all the files around. > Basically, but I think it wouldn't hurt to have a specific package > name for the stdlib for in-code documenting instead of thinking > that perhaps someone just stuck a module directly on sys.path . I'm not convinced it buys us anything over just using the absolute import mechanism in the PEP. > > And what does 'from py import *' do, anyway? > > Not much. =) It would import the top-level of a bunch of > subpackages which will most likely not get you to a module, class, > or function and thus couldn't be used to resolve to anything. So you're saying that the toplevel of 'stdlib' wouldn't contain any real modules, but instead they'd be grouped under sub-packages? Good luck finding a home for everything... trying to categorise everything will be nearly impossible. And 'from stdlib.misc import foo' will make me very very unhappy. Anthony -- Anthony Baxter <anthony at interlink.com.au> It's never too late to have a happy childhood.
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4