On 1/4/07, M.-A. Lemburg <mal at egenix.com> wrote: > > On 2007-01-03 01:42, Brett Cannon wrote: > > On 1/2/07, M.-A. Lemburg <mal at egenix.com> wrote: > >> >> > +Open Issues > >> >> > +=========== > >> >> > + > >> >> > +Consolidate dependent modules together into a single module or > >> >> package? > >> >> > ... > >> >> > +Consolidate certain modules with similar themes together in a > >> package? > >> >> > > >> +---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> >> > ... > >> >> > >> >> If you do follow this route, please take the chance to place > >> >> the whole Python stdlib under a single package. That way we'll > >> >> avoid name clashes with existing packages and modules now and > >> >> in the future. > >> > > >> > > >> > That has been suggested before (including by me) and Guido has always > >> shot > >> > it down. That's why I left it out of this proposal. > >> > >> Even if it is shot down again, it still deserves to be documented > >> together with the reasons for being shot down. > >> > >> This is a one-in-a-lifetime chance, so it would be sad if it were > >> not taken into account. > >> > >> The extra effort would be minimal - the renaming would have to be > >> done using a script anyway and adding an extra 'from py import ' > >> prefix to the modules wouldn't really make the renaming more > >> complicated ;-) > > > > > > I was about to start writing an open issue on this since the biggest > > objection from Guido I could find on this topic is > > http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2002-July/026409.html , but > > then > > it started to feel like a separate PEP to me. So I think I am going to > > pass > > on taking on this topic and let someone else tackle it in a PEP. Sorry, > > MAL, but I need to worry about my sanity on this one. =) > > Oh well, it seemed like a perfect fit for the scope of PEP 3108. I know, but I honestly just don't have the energy to deal with it. If you want to spear-head the discussion and help me add it to the PEP, then that's great. Guido's reply seems to suggest that he's in favor of introducing > a multi-package stdlib structure: > > """ > > > I'm rejecting the proposal of a single top-level package named > "python". > > > > You've written that before, but you still haven't given any > > explanation of why a single package would be worse than a > > multi-level hierarchy of modules (e.g. grouped by application > > space). > > Because a single package doesn't have any other benefits besides > getting out of the way from 3rd party developers. > > At least a proper hierarchy would have the other benefits of grouping. > (But better make it a shallow hierarchy! remember "Flat is better > than nested.") > """ > > AFAICT, he was only objecting having a single package without any > extra restructuring. Yep. PEP 3108 does have some basic package suggestions in the Open Issues section and people seem to support them. I will be making a separate push for them on python-3000 once the whole discussion of what modules to remove has settled down. Then again, the post is from 2002 - so things may have changed. Maybe. There have been a couple of attempts to reorg the stdlib into > packages, but AFAIR, I see, all of them were withdrawn > due to the problem of finding a suitable grouping (often enough, > a module would be suitable for more than just one functional > package, e.g. urllib would fit "io" as well as "net") or > lack of support from the developers. Yep, that's what has happened. Now that we're discussing moving the include files into > a subdirectory (for much the same reasons), I think it's > time to reboot the discussion of a Python package with or > without possible subpackages. Well, perhaps other people want to show support if they like the idea? I am personally split down the middle either way. -Brett -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20070104/158841bb/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