"Ronald Oussoren" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >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. ---
Without a misc package, we either need to have an all-inclusive set of top level categories (difficult) or else put the oddballs at top level, which counteracts the purpose of having categories. The latter improperly highlites the oddballs and increases the chances of name-clashes -- especially when more are added. I have found catch-all categories very useful in other contexts. 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
