On Tue, 28 Mar 2000, Andrew M. Kuchling wrote:
> Peter Funk quoted:
> >Fredrik Lundh:
> >> I'm not so sure that Python really needs a simple reorganization
> >> of the existing set of standard library modules. just moving the
> >> modules around won't solve the real problems with the 1.5.2 std
> >> library...
> >Right. I propose to leave the namespace flat.
>
> I third that comment. Arguments against reorganizing for 1.6:
Let me just note that my original great renaming proposal was titled
"1.7". I'm certain I don't want it to affect the 1.6 release -- my god,
it's almost alpha time and we don't even know how to reorganize.
Strictly 1.7.
> 4) We wanted to get 1.6 out fairly quickly, and therefore limited
> the number of features that would get in. (Vide the "Python 1.6
> timing" thread last ... November, was it?) Packagizing is feature
> creep that'll slow things down
Oh yes. I'm waiting for that 1.6....I wouldn't want to stall it for the
world.
But this is a good chance as any to discuss reasons, before strategies.
Here's why I believe we should re-organize Python modules:
-- modules fall quite naturally into subpackages. Reducing the number
of toplevel modules will lessen the clutter
-- it would be easier to synchronize documentation and code (think
"automatically generated documentation")
-- it would enable us to move toward a CPAN-like module repository,
together with the dist-sig efforts.
--
Moshe Zadka <mzadka@geocities.com>.
http://www.oreilly.com/news/prescod_0300.html
http://www.linux.org.il -- we put the penguin in .com
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