On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 06:02:18PM -0400, Ned Deily wrote: > I suggest we consider at a minimum adding a "See also:" note > referencing cmd2 to the cmd documentation in the Standard Library > document, similar to what we do for the third-party "requests" module > in the "urllib.request" documentation.
I think the documentation note is a good idea. But I disagree with deprecating "cmd" unless it is actively falling apart and no longer working, not just languishing with no feature improvements. Just in the last week, I've been reminded twice that many people using Python do so where they cannot just arbitarily pip install <whatever>, and if a library isn't in the std lib, they can't use it without a lot of pain: https://mail.python.org/pipermail/tutor/2018-April/112817.html https://mail.python.org/pipermail/tutor/2018-April/112818.html [...] > What triggered this suggestion is that Oz Tiram opened an enhancement > request for cmd with suggested code > (https://bugs.python.org/issue33227) that implements a feature already > in cmd2. As I replied there, it seems to me to be almost a disservice > to our users to add piecemeal enhancements to cmd at this point when > it is essentially unmaintained and a superior alternative exists - > that's assuming a core developer stepped up to shepherd the proposed > change. It seems especially perverse to complain that the module is not being maintained, and then when the first person steps up with a feature request that might encourage giving the module some attention, to deprecate it instead! *wink* > If you have an opinion about either recommending cmd2 in the cmd docs > and/or deprecating cmd in 3.8, please comment on > https://bugs.python.org/issue33233. I will follow up there as well. -- Steve _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
