>The best existing indicator we have is the organization of the docs for >the standard library. I, for one, have a hell of a difficult time finding >modules via the "organized" table of contents in the Library Reference. >Instead, I always go the the Global Module Index where the somewhat flat >namespace makes it easy to go directly to the module of interest. I'm >curious whether the other developers have had the same experience -- if >so, then it is a bad omen for over-organizing the standard library. I nearly always use my browser's search function to find the module of interest, so yes, I'm effectively using a flat namespace. >Another indicator of what lies ahead is the current organization of os vs >os.path. While that split-out was well done and necessary, I routinely >have difficulty remembering which one contains a function of interest. I mostly remember, but there are some notable exceptions: exists (posix system call, expect to find it in os), walk (which is the old deprecated one? have to check doc). -- Andrew McNamara, Senior Developer, Object Craft http://www.object-craft.com.au/
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