Lennart Regebro writes:
> One worry with an official sumo distribution is that it could become
> an excuse for *not* putting something in the stdlib.
> Otherwise it's an interesting idea.
On the contrary, that is the meat of why it's an interesting idea.
I really don't think the proponents of ipaddr and futures (to take two
recent PEPs) would have been willing to stop with a hypothetical sumo.
Both of those packages were designed with general use in mind.
Substantial effort was put into making them TOOWTDI-able. Partly
that's pride ("my stuff is good enough for the stdlib"), and partly
there's a genuine need for it to be there (for your customers or just
to pay back the community). Of course there was a lot of criticism of
both that they don't really come up to that standard, but even
opponents would credit the proponents for good intentions and making
the necessary effort, I think. And it's the stdlib that (in a certain
sense) puts the "OO" in "TOOWTDI".
On the other hand, some ideas deserve widespread exposure, but they
need real experience because the appropriate requirements and specs
are unclear. It would be premature to put in the effort to make them
TOOWTDI. However, to get the momentum to become BCP, and thus an
obvious candidate for stdlib inclusion, it's helpful to be *already*
available on *typical* installations. PyPI is great, but it's not
quite there; it's not as discoverable and accessible as simply putting
"import stuff" based on some snippet you found on the web. And the
stdlib itself can't be the means, it's the end.
At present, such ideas face the alternative "stdlib or die". The sumo
would give them a place to be.
_______________________________________________
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
