On 31-mei-2006, at 19:19, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > Le mercredi 31 mai 2006 à 09:57 -0700, Brett Cannon a écrit : >> >> That might be true of http, but what about modules with a more >> ambiguous name? > > Then perhaps the name can be made less ambiguous ;) > For example "ElementTree" could be named "xmltree", or whatever. > >> But with Java (don't have much .NET experience) the issue is they put >> data structures in java.util which doesn't explain anything. But if >> it had been named datastruct or something more meaningful would it be >> so bad? > > No, but it still would be additional baggage to remember. > It is clear a "deque" is a collection and a "heapq" is a specific kind > of data structure, so why try to categorize them whereas the > categorization does not bring any additional information or > functionality to the programmer?
And what would a more hierarchical namespace mean for 3th-party code? If there were to be a toplevel package "gui" that contains gui code such as tkinter it would be very natural to assume that wxWidgets or gtk are also in the gui namespace, even if they aren't part of the standard library. I haven't thought enough about this to know which option I'd hate more, requiring 3th-party libraries to pick unobvious names or not knowing if net.jabber is a standard library package I didn't use yet or something that is was installed sepereately. Ronald _______________________________________________ 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
