David Mertz writes: > OK, I'll acknowledge my comment might have overstated the bar to overcome. > A parser added to the standard library doesn't need to be perfect for > everyone. But adding to stdlib *does* provide a kind of endorsement of the > right default way to go about things.
Indeed it does, but TOOWTDI is not absolute. > However, cross-cutting that formal power issue, there are two main > programming styles used by different libraries. I concede this tends to raise the bar quite a bit. > Something in the standard library would have to be partisan in > selecting one particular approach as the "official" one. Perhaps. Even there, though, we have an example: XML. We gotcher SAX, we gotcher DOM, we gotcher ElementTree, we gotcher expat. I think XML processing is probably a *lot* more used and in a lot more modes than general parsing. But the analogy is valid, even though I can't say it's powerful *enough*. There definitely is a bar to clear. I don't know if it's worth Nam's effort to try to clear it -- there's no guarantee of success on something like this. I just think we shouldn't be *too* discouraging. And I personally think parsing formal languages is an important enough field to deserve consideration for stdlib inclusion, even if it's not going to be used every day. Steve _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
