On 26/05/10 12:29, Lennart Regebro wrote: > On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 02:10, Nick Coghlan<ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote: >> Those that say "just put it on PyPI" may not recognise the additional ... > > Just a note, so we don't get sidelined by misunderstandings: I don't > think anybody said that. ;-) Nah, that pseudo-quote wasn't from this discussion in particular. It's a reference to the ongoing tension between the "batteries included" advocates and the "make the standard library as streamlined as possible" crowd. Both sides have valid points, so the "included battery" vs "optional download" question needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis. > There are two issues here, one generic and one specific: > > Generic: Modules should go on PyPI first, for a time, to stabilize > (and so they can be used in earlier versions of Python) before they > end up in stdlib. I suspect everyone actually agrees on that (but I > could be wrong). That's the point I'm disagreeing with. For most modules it makes sense to do things that way, but for some low-level infrastructure elements, it is going to be less effective (because people will quickly throw together their own solutions instead of adding a new dependency for something "simple"). Other times we'll invent a new module because *we* need it for something (e.g. runpy). Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan at gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia ---------------------------------------------------------------
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