On 20 February 2013 04:07, Tres Seaver <tseaver at palladion.com> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 02/19/2013 09:37 PM, Paul Moore wrote: >> On 20 February 2013 00:54, Fred Drake <fred at fdrake.net> wrote: >>> I'd posit that anything successful will no longer need to be added >>> to the standard library, to boot. Packaging hasn't done well >>> there. >> >> distlib may be the exception, though. Packaging tools are somewhat >> unique because of the chicken and egg issue involved in having a >> packaging tool with external dependencies - who installs your >> dependencies for you? So enabling technology (library code to perform >> packaging-related tasks, particularly in support of standardised >> formats) could be better available from the stdlib. > > The big blocker there is that users can't rely on having it in the stdlib > until after they drop Python < 3.4 (assuming accelearated absorption) or > even 3.5. Understood - that's why I suggested that distlib reach a point where it's stable as an external package and supported on (some) older versions. I'm hoping for an experience more like unittest2 than packaging/distutils2. But we shouldn't be blocking new stdlib features just because they won't be available in older Python versions... Paul
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