This must be a really silly question, or it would have been asked already, so I apologise in advance.
It appears you have written a low level http, ftp, smtp library included in this library... why is there not a standard library for each of these protocols, and why aren't you building on top of that? - me On 10 November 2011 15:43, Jacob Carlborg <d...@me.com> wrote: > On 2011-11-10 11:21, Jonathan M Davis wrote: > >> Well, for better or worse, we don't have an official policy on it. In >> general, I >> think that the tact is to try and rename the item so that it doesn't pose >> a >> problem, but that's not always possible (hence FunctionAttribute.pure_). >> In >> this case, since it comes from something else, it looks like it really >> should >> be some version of delete. However, whereas FunctionAttribute pretty much >> _had_ to be as close to the keyword as possible since it represented the >> keyword, that's not the case here, and given how ugly it is to tack the _ >> on, >> del seems like a reasonable solution. >> >> In any case, if we want something official, we'd have to discuss it, and >> we >> generally have a hard time coming to any kind of consensus on stuff like >> that. >> So, I don't generally try unless it seems particularly important. >> >> - Jonathan M Davis >> > > I think we should write down, somewhere, what we have, what we have agreed > on unofficially. It may not be complete and not contain details for > everything but it would at least be something. Instead of having to explain > this every time we get a new contributor to Phobos or one has to try to > find this information in the newsgroup. > > -- > /Jacob Carlborg >
