2009/9/28 Peter Moody <pe...@hda3.com> > [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. > > Sure, I'm happy to volunteer and help out. Let's have a good hard look at all this and see what we can come up with.
> > 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/<http://www.python.org/%7Eguido/> > ) > > _______________________________________________ > > 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