Terry Reedy wrote:
> "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.
That's pretty much what I was thinking. . . (come one, come all, come see a
live demonstration of the bystander effect in action!)
> 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.
This wording sounds much better to me, too.
Cheers,
Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Brisbane, Australia
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.boredomandlaziness.org
_______________________________________________
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
