"Fred L. Drake, Jr." wrote: > > 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. Python 1.6 will start using packages in the core... the Unicode patches add an "encodings" package. > > 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. "mx" is also taken -- its just that nobody knows yet :-) -- Marc-Andre Lemburg ______________________________________________________________________ Business: http://www.lemburg.com/ Python Pages: http://www.lemburg.com/python/
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