On 3/29/06, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 3/29/06, Anthony Baxter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thursday 30 March 2006 08:39, Brett Cannon wrote: > > > Here is a place I think we can take a queue from Java. I think we > > > should have a root package, 'py', and then have subpackages within > > > that. > > > > org.python.stdlib, surely? <wink> > > > > I don't have a problem with reorganising the standard library, but > > what's the motivation for moving everything under a new root? Is it > > just to allow people to unambigiously get hold of something from the > > stdlib, rather than following the normal search path? > > Yes, it's to make it obvious the module came from the stdlib instead > of another package.
Dream on. The Java "standard" namespace is polluted with weirdnesses like "javax" (some kind of extensions) "org.xml", etc. > > Doesn't the > > absolute/relative import PEP solve this problem? > > Basically, but I think it wouldn't hurt to have a specific package > name for the stdlib for in-code documenting instead of thinking that > perhaps someone just stuck a module directly on sys.path . Actually it doesn't. > > And what does 'from py import *' do, anyway? > > Not much. =) It would import the top-level of a bunch of subpackages > which will most likely not get you to a module, class, or function and > thus couldn't be used to resolve to anything. I'd like to nip this discussion in the bud; it's just going to waste a lot of developers time. We need more people thinking seriously about the process and meta issues for Python 3000. (Yes, I know, I need to catch up with some threads myself. Hopefully next week when I'm no longer a single parent.) -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com