RetroSearch Browse

Sat Oct 18 17:22:00 EDT 2003 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2003-October/038995.html

> Can we dream of a standard library module of "neat hacks that
> don't really warrant a built-in" in which to stash some of these
> general-purpose, no-specific-appropriate-module, useful functions
> and classes?  Pluses: would save some people reimplementing
> them over and over and sometimes incorrectly; would remove
> any pressure to add not-perfectly-appropriate builtins.  Minuses:
> one more library module (the, what, 211th?  doesn't seem like
> a biggie).  Language unchanged -- just library.  Pretty please?

Modules should be about specific applications, or algorithms, or data
types, or some other unifying principle.  I think "handy" doesn't
qualify. :-)

> > (I know, by that argument several built-ins shouldn't exist.  Well,
> > they might be withdrawn in 3.0; let's not add more.)
> 
> "Amen and Hallelujah" to the hope of slimming language and
> built-ins in 3.0 (presumably the removed built-ins will go into a
> "legacy curiosa" module, allowing a "from legacy import *" to
> ease making old code run in 3.0? seems cheap & sensible).

Let's not speculate yet about how to get old code to run in 3.0.

--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2003-October/038995.html below:

[Python-Dev] The Trick