On 24/05/10 20:46, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Cameron Simpson writes:
> There's a lot to be said for a robust implementation of a well defined
> problem. Brian's module, had it been present and presuming it robust and
> debugged, would have been quite welcome.
That, of course, is the consensus view, both in general and with
respect to this particular module.
The difference is over what constitutes sufficient evidence for your
presumption of "robust and debugged" from the point of view of the
users of the stdlib.
At the very least, we'll be offering a promise to be "more robust and
more debugged than what you came up with in that coding marathon last
night" ;)
Having a decent test suite that is regularly executed on multiple
platforms (which will be the case for any accepted module by the time it
is included in a Python release) also places anything we release a cut
above a *lot* of in-house code.
Cheers,
Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
---------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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
