Yes.
Seriously. As these tools evolve, there is much that
is new and good and much that is old that should be (gracefully)
deprecated for a few years and then retired.
Some modules are interesting only for backward compatibility.
Also, the organization of modules in the LIB manual makes very
little sense to new users. Clearly, this organization evolved
organically with the language, but perhaps it is time to
refactor that module tree.
Reaching back a few decades - I read in my history books that
the Algol 68 effort fragmented into a flame war after the very
successful Algol 60 effort. The flame war lead to three
parallel efforts that eventually gave us Algol 68 (any users?),
PL/1 and Pascal. Which had the biggest user base? I think it
was Pascal, the one that went for the fewest-best features.
(Or possibly it was the French mathematician after whom it was
named, hard to say for sure.)
I do not suggest that Python usage will fragment; rather I
suggest that a focus on a few important features is the most
beneficial.
--- Fredrik Lundh <fredrik@pythonware.com> wrote:
> Steven Lott wrote:
>
> > The true majority are the "yet to start" users, for whom the
> > String class will be the only thing they ever use;
> irrespective
> > of the deprecation state of string.
>
> you mean we should burn all existing python books, and
> start over from scratch?
>
> </F>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Python-Dev mailing list
> Python-Dev@python.org
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
=====
--
S. Lott, CCP :-{)
S_LOTT@YAHOO.COM
http://www.mindspring.com/~slott1
Buccaneer #468: KaDiMa
Macintosh user: drinking upstream from the herd.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.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