On Monday, September 18, 2017 at 5:13:58 PM UTC-7, MRAB wrote: > On 2017-09-18 23:08, b...@g...com wrote:
> > My rationale is simple, the authors of the libraries are not tied into the > > (c)Python release cycle, the PEP process or anything else, they can just > > get on with it. > > > > Consider my approach many blue moons ago when I was asking when the "new" > > regex module was going to be incorporated into Python, and getting a bit > > miffed in my normal XXXL size hat autistic way when it didn't happen. I am > > now convinved that back then I was very firmly wrong, and that staying out > > of the stdlib has been the best thing that could have happened to regex. > > No doubt MRAB will disagree :) > > > I was, at one time, in favour of including it in the stdlib, but then I > changed my mind. Being outside the stdlib _does_ give me more > flexibility. I can, as you said, just get on with it. > I even have it on a Raspberry Pi. "pip install regex" is all it took. No > need for it to be in the stdlib. :-) Inadvertently, you have just pointed out a weakness of not including something important and great in the stdlib. There's an alternative to the re module, which at least a few members of the community consider to be superior, and which might therefore be widely used. But... until now, I'd never heard of it. I have come to understand from your other posts that adding something to the stdlib imposes significant constraints on the release schedules of those modules. I can appreciate the hassle that might cause. Still, now I wonder what I might be missing. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
