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,
When I numbered the steps, I didn't think of prescribing a specific order of the steps. I'll remove the numbers. > 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 ... Yes, that's better. > 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! That's exactly how the proposal is meant. I do not expect all modules to be totally reworked either ;) If there's no other general problem, I'll check the improved version in as PEP 3001. Georg _______________________________________________ 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
