On Jun 28, 2004, at 7:05 AM, Aahz wrote: > On Thu, Jun 24, 2004, Bob Ippolito wrote: >> On Jun 24, 2004, at 10:27 AM, Aahz wrote: >>> On Wed, Jun 16, 2004, Raymond Hettinger wrote: >>>> >>>> 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``? >> >> If nothing else, that would cause hell for people who would like to >> use >> a backport of the package for Python N, where N is less than the first >> version that had this feature but still had the string module. > > This actually makes it *easier* to backport; you only take the > submodule > you want. Why is calling it string instead of text easier? You can't easily replace string, because site-packages comes late in sys.path. -bob -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 2357 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20040628/3544c284/smime.bin
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