Re: standard libraries don't behave like standard 'libraries'

2009-11-12 Thread Benjamin Kaplan
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 12:05 PM, Sriram Srinivasan wrote: >> So all libraries written have to use the common subset, which - unless >> things are *removed*, which with python3 actually happened - is always >> the oldest interpreter. And if a feature goes away, they have to be >> rewritten with th

Re: standard libraries don't behave like standard 'libraries'

2009-11-12 Thread Sriram Srinivasan
> So all libraries written have to use the common subset, which - unless > things are *removed*, which with python3 actually happened - is always > the oldest interpreter. And if a feature goes away, they have to be > rewritten with the then common subset. you see that's the problem with py3. inst

Re: standard libraries don't behave like standard 'libraries'

2009-11-12 Thread Diez B. Roggisch
Sriram Srinivasan schrieb: On Nov 12, 6:07 pm, "Diez B. Roggisch" wrote: ok let me make it more clear.. forget how you use python now.. i am talking about __futuristic__ python programming. there is no more python2.x or python3.x or python y.x releases. there is only updates of python and stand

Re: standard libraries don't behave like standard 'libraries'

2009-11-12 Thread Sriram Srinivasan
> You are describing a lending library, which is not the only sort of > library. My personal library doesn't do any of those things. It is just a > room with shelves filled with books. how i see is all libraries are libraries, for a personal library you are the only customer and you are the manag

Re: standard libraries don't behave like standard 'libraries'

2009-11-12 Thread Sriram Srinivasan
On Nov 12, 6:07 pm, "Diez B. Roggisch" wrote: > > ok let me make it more clear.. > > forget how you use python now.. i am talking about __futuristic__ > > python programming. > > > there is no more python2.x or python3.x or python y.x releases. there > > is only updates of python and standard libr

Re: standard libraries don't behave like standard 'libraries'

2009-11-12 Thread Steven D'Aprano
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 00:31:57 -0800, Sriram Srinivasan wrote: > I guess why every programming language has some kind of a 'standard > library' built in within it. > In my view it must not be called as a 'library' at all. what it does is > like a 'bunch of built-in programs ready-made to do stuff'.

Re: standard libraries don't behave like standard 'libraries'

2009-11-12 Thread Diez B. Roggisch
ok let me make it more clear.. forget how you use python now.. i am talking about __futuristic__ python programming. > there is no more python2.x or python3.x or python y.x releases. there is only updates of python and standard library say 1.1.5 and 1.1.6. let the difference be an old xml libr

Re: standard libraries don't behave like standard 'libraries'

2009-11-12 Thread Sriram Srinivasan
On Nov 12, 4:35 pm, "Diez B. Roggisch" wrote: > Sriram Srinivasan schrieb: > > > > > On Nov 12, 3:56 pm, "Diez B. Roggisch" wrote: > >> Sriram Srinivasan schrieb: > > >>> I guess why every programming language has some kind of a 'standard > >>> library' built in within it. > >>> In my view it mus

Re: standard libraries don't behave like standard 'libraries'

2009-11-12 Thread Diez B. Roggisch
Sriram Srinivasan schrieb: On Nov 12, 3:56 pm, "Diez B. Roggisch" wrote: Sriram Srinivasan schrieb: I guess why every programming language has some kind of a 'standard library' built in within it. In my view it must not be called as a 'library' at all. what it does is like a 'bunch of built

Re: standard libraries don't behave like standard 'libraries'

2009-11-12 Thread Sriram Srinivasan
On Nov 12, 3:56 pm, "Diez B. Roggisch" wrote: > Sriram Srinivasan schrieb: > > > > > I guess why every programming language has some kind of a 'standard > > library' built in within it. > > In my view it must not be called as a 'library' at all. what it does > > is like a 'bunch of built-in progra

Re: standard libraries don't behave like standard 'libraries'

2009-11-12 Thread Diez B. Roggisch
Sriram Srinivasan schrieb: On Nov 12, 3:56 pm, "Diez B. Roggisch" wrote: Sriram Srinivasan schrieb: I guess why every programming language has some kind of a 'standard library' built in within it. In my view it must not be called as a 'library' at all. what it does is like a 'bunch of built

Re: standard libraries don't behave like standard 'libraries'

2009-11-12 Thread Sriram Srinivasan
On Nov 12, 3:56 pm, "Diez B. Roggisch" wrote: > Sriram Srinivasan schrieb: > > > > > I guess why every programming language has some kind of a 'standard > > library' built in within it. > > In my view it must not be called as a 'library' at all. what it does > > is like a 'bunch of built-in progra

Re: standard libraries don't behave like standard 'libraries'

2009-11-12 Thread Diez B. Roggisch
Sriram Srinivasan schrieb: I guess why every programming language has some kind of a 'standard library' built in within it. In my view it must not be called as a 'library' at all. what it does is like a 'bunch of built-in programs ready-made to do stuff'. Lets see what a 'library' does: 1. offe

standard libraries don't behave like standard 'libraries'

2009-11-12 Thread Sriram Srinivasan
I guess why every programming language has some kind of a 'standard library' built in within it. In my view it must not be called as a 'library' at all. what it does is like a 'bunch of built-in programs ready-made to do stuff'. Lets see what a 'library' does: 1. offers books for customers 1.1 l