[me] > > If you still think a solution is desired, you could start by > > proposing a new standard package hierarchy. Then new standard > > modules could be placed in that new hierarchy rather than at the > > top level. > > > > I'm rejecting the proposal of a single top-level package named "python". [Michael] > I've read the entire thread and still do not understand why you are > suggesting the new standard package hirearchy should be named > "new". The contents will eventually will grow old and they will > still be in something called "new". Why not use a name like "std", > "misc", "core", or "sph" for the top of the standard package > hiearchy? It doesn't matter what the name will be, but I hope it > will be something that isn't confusing. Uh? Who is proposing to name it "new"? Not me! Maybe you should read the entire thread again? :-) --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
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