[Greg writes] > I'm not even going to attempt to try to > define a hierarchy for all those modules. I count 137 on my local system. > Let's say that I *do* try... some are going to end up "forced" rather than > obeying some obvious grouping. If you do it a chunk at a time, then you > get the obvious, intuitive groupings. Try for more, and you just bung it > all up. ... > Just because module A is in a package doesn't imply that module B must > also be in a package. I agree with Greg - every module will not fit into a package. But I also agree with Guido - we _should_ attempt to go through the 137 modules and put the ones that fit into logical groupings. Greg is probably correct with his selection for "net", but a general evaluation is still a good thing. A view of the bigger picture will help to quell debates over the structure, and only leave us with the squabbles over the exact spelling :-) +2 on ... err .... -1 on ... errr - awww - screw that-<grin>-ly, Mark.
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