Guido van Rossum wrote:
> Often the needs of certain user groups and the development speeds of
> such 3rd party modules are so different that it simply doesn't make
> sense to fold them in the Python distribution anyway -- consider what
> you would have to do if Kurt accepted your patches: you'll still have
> to wait until Python 2.5 is released before others can benefit from
> your changes, and if you come up with an improvement after that
> release, your next chance will be 18 months later...
Isn't separate distribution the way the *current* version of Idle was
developed? I seem to recall it existing as IDLEFork for a long time so that it
could have a more rapid release cycle before being rolled into the main
distribution.
This approach also allows a wider audience to asess the subjective benefits of
any changes made - many more people will download and try out a separate IDE
than will download and try out a patch to the main distribution. I'm such a
one, even though I believe my main problems with Idle lie in the Tcl/tk
toolkit (so I don't expect any application level changes to alter my opinion
much).
Regards,
Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan at gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://boredomandlaziness.blogspot.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