On 17/07/2010 12:50, Michael Foord wrote:
On 17/07/2010 12:47, Steve Holden wrote:
On 7/17/2010 7:33 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Hello,
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 02:05:22 +0300
Tal Einat<talei...@gmail.com> wrote:
I would like to propose removing IDLE from the standard library.
I have been using IDLE since 2002 and have been doing my best to help
maintain and further develop IDLE since 2005.
I haven't seen any conclusive statement or action to this thread.
Without being an IDLE user myself (for good reason), I think that if
IDLE should stay, active contributors such as Tal should be given commit
access and enough free rein to maintain and improve it.
Otherwise there's no reason to continue claiming that IDLE is important
while discouraging such people's contributions. The current situation,
where several core developers support IDLE's continued inclusion but
none actually cares for the issues and patches in the tracker, is
schizophrenic.
Regards
Antoine.
+1
There's no reason why Tal should be obstructed in his goal of making
IDLE at least acceptable again. It's fairly obvious thaat there aren't
any committers who have both the inclination /and/ the time to do this,
so adding Tal (and other interested parties) as a developer makes a lot
of sense.
Guilherme's *existing* patch for IDLE looks like it improves it a great
deal, at the cost of potentially requiring Tk 8.5 (?). Can this just be
committed?
https://code.google.com/p/python-ttk/wiki/Screenshots
Michael Foord
regards
Steve
IIRC Terry Reedy is also interested in moving IDLE forward.
Some help will certainly be needed to work on the 3 high, 80 normal and
13 low priority issues that are open against IDLE on the issue tracker.
Kindest regards.
Mark Lawrence.
_______________________________________________
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
