On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Ned Deily <n...@acm.org> wrote: > In article > <caf-rda9-9vf4qiatjohc8wo_aqng++2qmndkj3ucv2o4ptm...@mail.gmail.com>, > Eli Bendersky <eli...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Victor Stinner > > <victor.stin...@gmail.com>wrote: > > > It's maybe not the right place to discuss that, but why is IDLE part > > > of the Python stdlib? Can't we maintain IDLE outside Python? I guess > > > that maintaining it outside the stdlib would allow to develop it > > > faster and be able to upgrade it for old (unmaintained) Python > > > versions. > > Strongly +1 here. I'd extend it to the whole tkinter and derivatives, but > > IDLE itself is a worthier goal. In my view, it's been mainly "kept alive" > > for the past many years and is a much inferior IDE to others, and not a > > very good editor. > > Please, this is definitely not the right place to discuss the issue of > IDLE in the stdlib. It has been discussed repeatedly and the conclusion > is always that it is an important part of the batteries-included > experience. More importantly, PEP 434, is out for review concerning > IDLE maintenance and features, is currently out for review. That would > be a much more appropriate place to bring up any concerns. (I will be > forwarding my comments to the PEP soon, BTW.) >
Sorry for mixing it up - I did not intend to hijack the discussion. While I'm not familiar with Roger's work ISTM there were enough +1 to put a stamp on it. Eli
_______________________________________________ python-committers mailing list python-committers@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
