[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Ben Finney wrote:
> > How do we deal with the rampant proliferation of a zillion
> > implementations of some standard idiom in PyPI?
>
> How about some kind of "mega util" package? One big package with all
> those recurring reinventions. If it gets popular enough, I'm su
Ben Finney wrote:
> Fine sentiments. What does this mean for PyPI though? How should those
> of us who also want to "reinvent no more forever" proceed? How do we
> deal with the rampant proliferation of a zillion implementations of
> some standard idiom in PyPI?
How about s
Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 17 Nov 2005 18:06:55 -0800 in comp.lang.python, "Phillip J. Eby"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> [...]
> >
> >Okay, so call yours "SuperEnum" or "PowerEnum" or "UltraEnum" or
> >"BetterEnum", "Enum-O-Matic", "Symbolitron"...
>
> ITYM "EnumOMatic" or "Enum_O_Matic". "Enum-O
On 17 Nov 2005 18:06:55 -0800 in comp.lang.python, "Phillip J. Eby"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
>
>Okay, so call yours "SuperEnum" or "PowerEnum" or "UltraEnum" or
>"BetterEnum", "Enum-O-Matic", "Symbolitron"...
ITYM "EnumOMatic" or "Enum_O_Matic". "Enum-O-Matic" is a syntax
error. Or wors
Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ben Finney wrote:
> > - It's just a pretty simple type, with unit tests. Does this
> > really justify a PyPI package?
>
> Yes.
Thanks for the brief, but supportive discussion from everyone. I've
now packaged and uploaded my simple module. (No prizes
Ben Finney wrote:
> - Proliferation. What's the protocol when[1] someone else puts an
> (incompatible, differently-specified) Enum implementation into
> PyPI?
Either one of the two will be judged better, and the other will wither
away, or else each will be better for different circumstan
Ben Finney wrote:
> I hold up all existing public source code repositories as evidence
> against your prediction. Reinventing the wheel is distressingly
> common, and a dependency tool isn't going to stop that.
Is there ever a point at which one decides that "unusable dependency
tools" are distres
Fuzzyman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ben Finney wrote:
> > On dirtSimple.org[0], PJE wrote:
> >
> > [...] Python code is easy to write, but hard to depend on. You
> > pretty much have to:
> >
> > 1. limit yourself to platforms with a suitable packaging
> > system,
> >
Ben Finney wrote:
> Howdy all,
>
Hello,
> On dirtSimple.org[0], PJE wrote:
>
> "Why is Python "blessed" with so much reinvention? Because it's
> often cheaper to rewrite than to reuse. Python code is easy to
> write, but hard to depend on. You pretty much have to:
>
> 1. limit
n for PyPI though? How should those
of us who also want to "reinvent no more forever" proceed? How do we
deal with the rampant proliferation of a zillion implementations of
some standard idiom in PyPI?
The case that led me to this quandary is simple: I'm developing an
application th
10 matches
Mail list logo
