On Sun, 03 Apr 2011 16:34:34 +1000, Brian Quinlan wrote: > On 3 Apr 2011, at 16:22, geremy condra wrote: >> I think we're talking at cross purposes. The point I'm making is that >> there are lots of issues where popularity as a third party module isn't >> really a viable test for whether a feature is sufficiently awesome to >> be in core python. As part of determining whether I thought it was >> appropriate in this case I essentially just asked myself whether any of >> the really good and necessary parts of Python would fail to be >> readmitted under similar circumstances, and I think the answer is that >> very few would come back in. To me, that indicates that this isn't the >> right way to address this issue, although I admit that I lack any solid >> proof to base that conclusion on. > > This has been discussed a few times on python-dev. I think that most > developers acknowledge that small-but-high-utility modules would not > survive outside of the core because people would simple recreate them > rather than investing the time to find, learn and use them.
That's certainly true for pure Python code, but for a C extension, the barrier to Do It Yourself will be much higher for most Python coders. On the other hand, for a pure Python function or class, you could stick it on ActiveState's Python cookbook and get some imperfect measure of popularity and/or usefulness from the comments and votes there. -- Steven -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
