Guido van Rossum wrote: > Unless you've recanted on that already, let me point out that I've > never seen sqlite, and I've ignored this thread, so I don't know what > the disagreement is all about. Perhaps one person in favor and one > person against could summarize the argument for me? Otherwise I'll > have to go with "no" just to err on the side of safety. I have strong > feelings about the language. Sometimes I have strong feelings about > the library. This doesn't seem to be one of those cases though... Let me try to take both sides simultaneously: For: would add an SQL library to the standard distribution, and one that doesn't depend on additional infrastructure on the target machine (such as an existing database server); the author of that library is fine with including it in Python Against: Adds work-load on the release process, adding more libraries to the already-large list of new libraries for 2.5. Choice of naming things is ad-hoc, but gets cast in stone by the release; likewise, choice of specific SQL library might inhibit addition of different libraries later. I'm sure people will add to the list if they think I omitted important points. Regards, Martin
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