[Aahz] > [Raymond Hettinger] > > Please do give consideration to putting all of this in a single > > module. IMO, this is too small of an addition to warrant splitting > > everything in to packages (which make it more difficult to > > understand and maintain as a collective unit). > That's true. However, there has been a regular low-level discussion > about creating a ``text`` package; why not simply name it ``string``? Please do not use, as package names, identifiers that users would likely want to keep for themselves. `text' and `string' are bad ideas for package names. `stringlib' seems much more likely do not hurt people. I know that `string' and `socket' exist, despite `string' is evanescent, but they surely forced users at choosing other identifiers where `string' and `socket' would have been perfect. It is very good news that, now in Python 2.3, `string' is unneeded most of times. Let us not repeat previous mistakes, or even nail them further by trying to be compatible with them. -- François Pinard http://www.iro.umontreal.ca/~pinard
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