"Guido van Rossum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >I didn't see any comments on this PEP.
For me, it is pretty clear and sensible, hence not much to say. Plus I expected others to says whatever was needed ;-). > I'm not sure that the order in which the > steps are to be carried out is all that important, nor that it's > necessary to do this in the same order for all modules, Such thoughts had occurred to me, but I don't think of anything specific to add. I read the steps as strong guidelines rather than a straightjacket. I imagine refinements will grow out of experience. > but otherwise > the only thing that bugs me is the reference to the great stdlib > renaming (which I'm not sure is such a great idea). This is the main thing that caught my attention since I did not know that you had made a decision, which, obviously now, you haven't. So I would break that sentence into two: There are proposals for a "great stdlib renaming" introducing a hierarchic library namespace. That possibility aside, some module's names are known ... And add PEP reference if and when there is a renaming PEP. > I expect that some of the goals (especially test coverage) are too > ambitious, > but it's worth at least aspiring to great works! The test coverage goal tells me that there is 'room' for me to contribute should I learn to be a good test writer. Terry Jan Reedy _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list Python-3000@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
