[cc += david moss] On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 9:39 AM, Guido van Rossum <gu...@python.org> wrote: > On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Antoine Pitrou <solip...@pitrou.net> wrote: >> Peter Moody <peter <at> hda3.com> writes: >>> >>> I've never said otherwise. In fact, from an email last night, "If what >>> the community requires is the library you've described, then ipaddr is >>> not that library." The changes *you* require make ipaddr significantly >>> less useful to me. I'm not prepared to make those changes in an >>> attempt seek acceptance to the stdlib, especially if the stdlib is in >>> such flux that I'll get to do this again in 18 months. >> >> Well, then I'm not sure why we have a PEP at all. >> If you don't want any significant changes and if you consider it to be *your* >> library, ipaddr can remain a third-party package that interested people can >> easily install (no pun ;-)) since AFAIK it's pure Python. It will also make >> maintenance easier for you, while freeing us (core developers) from having to >> bother about it in our daily development tasks. >> >> At least that's what I would advocate right now - not sure about what others >> think. > > I think Peter is pretty frustrated by the many attacks on "his" > library. There are probably a number of different things going on > simultaneous: Peter has been driven into the defense by attacks both > reasonable and unreasonable, there have been misunderstandings all > around, teasing out use cases (by both parties) has been a problem. > > Things might have gone differently if the PEP had started out with > multiple authors. Maybe it's not too late to add one or more other > interested parties to the PEP with the purpose of making the PEP more > clearly the result of a consensus-gathering process. Any volunteers?
David called me a little over a week ago and expressed an interest in doing exactly this cross continent/ocean coordination has been a little difficult thus far and I'm not certain what his feelings on this are now. > At the same time I don't think a complete reset of the proposed API is > necessary. I am rather more thinking of judicious API tweaks in order > to cover some new use cases, without requiring a complete rewrite or > destroying the usability of the proposal for Peter's original use > cases. (In general I am pretty happy with the ipaddr code and API; it > looks like what I would have done, but then I am blissfully unaware of > some of the issues brought up in this thread.) > > -- > --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) > _______________________________________________ > 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/python-dev%40hda3.com > _______________________________________________ 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
