Am 12.07.2010 10:06, schrieb Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven: > -On [20100712 08:26], Stephen Hansen (apt.shan...@gmail.com) wrote: >> But I, personally, would consider it a significant loss if IDLE went the way >> of >> the dodo or a third-party module. > > Why would it be a significant loss if it went the way of a third party > module? Clearly right now it's not being maintained as well as the rest of > Python.
I start disagreeing here already. It *is* as well maintained as the rest of Python - at least, there are many other parts of Python that get the same attention (or less). IDLE has been working for years, in a certain feature set. It just doesn't need much "maintenance", except for updates when the world around it is changing. > Maybe that's a clear indicator that it's better maintained > externally instead of in the main tree. That's an unfounded theory, at best. Two experiments to pro > So I would not mourn to see IDLE get moved out of the main repository as I > do not see the added value or benefit Now that's a different issue. You are not using it, fine. Does that mean it should be removed? If we removed all modules that somebody is not using, the standard library would be empty. Regards, Martin _______________________________________________ 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
