Moshe Zadka writes: > While I do enjoy having all this stuff with the core distribution, I have > one nit to pick. (Relevant more to 1.7 then 1.6, but worth keeping in > mind). Can we please, pretty please with cream on top, start using I think this is really a matter for Py3K; the 1.x series has a lot of backward-compatibility issues. There's no need to move things to packages if the old names are still supported; that just increases the clutter (all the old names *plus* the new packages). Until the library is reorganized into packages, there's no need to change the structural approach, since the re-organization will break lots of code anyway. > packages in the standard distribution? We can do it backwards compatibly, > with something like > > internet/ > protocol/ > httplib.py I wouldn't make it so deep; perhaps internet/httplib, but that's it. > Put new stuff only in packages, and that way we could have a large > distribution, without a lot of top-level name clutter. The XML stuff will be in the xml package; this matches what the XML-SIG has been doing all along. And please don't confuse distribution clutter with module namespace clutter; the first is merely annoying, while the latter is actually the important issue. > Anyone for? Against? Going to add me to their kill-files<wink>? Remember, the PSU reads names from my kill-file; be careful where you suggest we put yours. ;) -Fred -- Fred L. Drake, Jr. <fdrake at acm.org> Corporation for National Research Initiatives
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