On Thu, 16 Dec 1999, Andrew M. Kuchling wrote: > Paul Prescod writes: > >I don't understand this issue. Why would a C extension build on sgmlop > >which is designed to make XML information available to *Python* > >programmers? > > No, no; I'm arguing against shipping with Expat; sgmlop good! > Consider this scenario: > > * Python includes Expat 1.0 > * Some C library (for DAV or whatever) uses Expat 1.1 > * Someone writes a Python interface to this C library and > attempts to compile it statically. > * Two versions of Expat in the same binary; symbol conflicts > and core dumps, oh my! We should ship pyexpat, not Expat. (IMO) > >So are you saying that Python 2 might have only five packages and > >everything else must be downloaded? No httplib, no pickle, no random or > >math, no calendar, pwd, grp, imaplib, nntplib, mailbox or rexec? > > I'm not arguing for dropping existing packages; I'm against adding > many more of them. Existing library modules can stay where they are. > But I wouldn't mind a minimalist Python too much, if it came with a > script fetch-basic-packages: > > python fetch-packages.py httplib > python fetch-packages.py imaplib > ... 200 more lines ... Considering that it would probably use HTTP to fetch the packages, I think you wouldn't be fetching httplib :-) But yes: I agree with the basic sentiment. Cheers, -g -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
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