Anthony Baxter wrote: > On Friday 31 March 2006 02:04, M.-A. Lemburg wrote: >> > Excellent point. Hm. Maybe we should just go with 'sqlite', >> > instead. >> >> Anything, but please no "db" or "database" top-level module or >> package :-) > > > How about "sql"? <wink> > > I can't think of a better name right now - can anyone else, or should > it just go in the top level as 'sqlite'? > > >> I take it that this is not going to go into 2.5a1 ?! > > Well, right now the major missing bits for landing it right now are > the windows build project and the documentation. I'm pretty > comfortable with landing it for a1. It has tests, I've knitted these > into the Python regression testing suite and they're all passing > fine. I've tested building on systems with a version of sqlite that > is acceptable, with no sqlite, and with an old version of sqlite, and > the build process handles it all correctly.
Apart from the tests issue (see python-checkins), doesn't version 1.0 of PySQLite also use the name "_sqlite" for its C module? If so, ours should be renamed too (_sqlite3?) to avoid breaking old apps. Georg _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
