On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 05:15:23 -0400, vegetax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Are those issues being considered right now? i cant find any PEP addressing the issue especifically, at least cooking it for python 3000.
specific topics could be:
grouping related modules. removing useless legacy modules. refactoring duplicated functionality. removing/redesigning poorly written modules. adding a module versioning system.
I've been thinking that the lib directory could be better named and rearranged a bit. I sometimes mistakenly open the libs directory instead of lib because of the name similarity.
An alternative might be to use the name "packs" or "packages" in place of "lib", which would emphasize the use of packages as the primary method of extending python. The standard library could then be a package called "stdlib" within this directory. Third party packages would then be along side "stdlib" and not within a directory that is within the standard library.
It would be mostly a cosmetic change, but I believe it would be worth doing if it could be done without breaking programs that may have hard coded path references to the library. :-/
Ron
Ron:
You do a lot of thinking, don't you? :-)
This is a *very large* change, not a cosmetic one, requiring changes to many installation routines (including, probably, distutils) and causing problems for software that attempts to operate with multiple versions of Python - and those projects have problems enough as it is despite Python's quite fine record of careful development.
This seems a rather high price to pay just to avoid having you mistakenly avoid opening "libs" instead of "lib" - a distinction that is only meaningful on Windows platforms anyway, I believe.
You are correct in suggesting that the library could be better organized than it is, but I felt we would be better off deferring such change until the emergence of Python 3.0, which is allowed to break backwards compatibility. So, start working on your scheme now - PEP 3000 needs contributions. My own current favorite idea is to have the current standard library become the "stdlib" package, but I'm sure a lot of people would find that suggestion at least as half-baked as yours.
{If an idea is more-half-baked than something exactly half-baked is it 0.4-baked or 0.6-baked? Does "more half-baked" actually mean "less baked"?)
regards Steve -- Steve Holden +1 703 861 4237 +1 800 494 3119 Holden Web LLC http://www.holdenweb.com/ Python Web Programming http://pydish.holdenweb.com/
-- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
