On 1 Nov, 2007, at 15:06, Guido van Rossum wrote:
On 11/1/07, Ronald Oussoren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:For what it is worth: I agree that most of the mac libraries, such as the entire Carbon package, shouldn't be part of the standard library.The reason for that is simple: the release-cycle of the MacOS bindingsare currently bound to the release cycle of major releases of Python (e.g. one cannot do functional changes to the Carbon in the 2.5.x branch), but should IMO be synchronized with platform releases.Very good point.However, I also think the mac libraries shouldn't be removed from the standard library without someone stepping in to transform them into (a) standalone package(s). Alternatively the functionality should be available in other packages (such as PyObjC).Are you volunteering?
I'm volunteering to keep improving PyObjC, but I won't promise that PyObjC will be complete enough to replace the Carbon tree by the time Python 3.0 goes into beta. Heck, just commiting the version of PyObjC that is in Leopard into a public repository took me three weeks :-(
Does anyone have suggestions on how to mobilize people for this without scaring them away when explaining what needs to be done? People, including myself to be honest, seem to find other things to do when the realize that fixing the Carbon wrappers involves working with and hacking on bgen :-(
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
