On 5/30/06, A.M. Kuchling <amk at amk.ca> wrote: > > On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 03:36:02PM -0600, Steven Bethard wrote: > > That sounds about reasonable. One possible grouping: > > Note that 2.5's library reference has a different chapter organization > from 2.4's. See <http://docs.python.org/dev/lib/lib.html>. That's better. Here are my issues with it: I don't know if I like 'data types' containing stuff like datetime which provide information rather than help deal with data. And other stuff like sched don't seem to really have anything to do with data directly. I think pdb and profile can be moved to developer tools. I realize that the misc. category is there just to have a place to stick 'formatter' since it doesn't need its own root-level spot, but I think in terms of a package I don't like the idea of a misc package. -Brett -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20060530/254e5165/attachment.htm
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