On 2-jun-2006, at 20:53, Terry Reedy wrote:
"Aaron Bingham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED][me]For the latter (2 above), I think those who want such mostly agree in principle on a mostly two-level hierarchy with about 10-20 short namesforthe top-level, using the lib docs as a starting point for the categoriesThat's fine with me, but I still think we need a top-level prefix.I think that 10-20 reserved names is hardly such a burden that we would need anything more on top to avoid collisions -- especially if the list is fixed. The currently problem is that modules can be added to the stdlib that clash with existing 3rd party modules. That would no longer happen under my variation of the classification proposal, which would include amisc package.
I'm -lots on a package named "misc". That's really poor naming, almost as bad as "util". Misc is the "we don't know what to do with these"-category and completely unobvious for anyone that doesn't already know where to look. It seems to me that misc would end up containing all modules and packages that don't fit in one of the preconceived toplevel packages and don't have enough peers in the misc package to move them to their own toplevel package.
Ronald
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ 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
