On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 11:42 PM, Antoine Pitrou <solip...@pitrou.net> wrote: >> I really like that much better than Java-like accessor functions. > > Do you actually use sysconfig yourself? It's quite a specialized > module, and I don't think API elegance arguments have a great weight > here.
I would also like those advocating replacement of a tried and tested API with "oh, you can just use a single function for it" to rewrite distutils2 and the other tools that currently used distutils.sysconfig based on their "single function" approach before *anything* gets touched. This is not an API that was invented on a whim. It is well-established, with existing use cases that are essential to the wider Python ecosystem, and are more easily managed on some Linux distributions if they don't involve a dependency on distutils. Proposing to throw it away in favour of an ill-defined single function that indiscriminately mixes system data with metadata about that data because some people that don't even use the module find it aesthetically displeasing seems... unwise. Regards, 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
