On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 2:48 AM, Antoine Pitrou <[email protected]> wrote:
> Le Thu, 21 Mar 2013 21:38:41 +0100, > Georg Brandl <[email protected]> a écrit : > > > Am 21.03.2013 19:13, schrieb Antoine Pitrou: > > > On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 19:57:54 -0700 > > > Raymond Hettinger <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > >> On Mar 20, 2013, at 12:38 PM, Barry Warsaw <[email protected]> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> > Right. Ultimately, I think IDLE should be a separate project > > >> > entirely, but I guess there's push back against that too. > > >> > > >> The most important feature of IDLE is that it ships with the > > >> standard library. Everyone who clicks on the Windows MSI on the > > >> python.org webpage automatically has IDLE. That is why I > > >> frequently teach Python with IDLE. > > >> > > >> If this thread results in IDLE being ripped out of the standard > > >> distribution, then I would likely never use it again. > > > > > > Which says a lot about its usefulness, if the only reason you use > > > it is that it's bundled with the standard distribution. > > > > Just like a lot of the stdlib, it *gets* a lot of usefulness from > > being a battery. But just because there are better/more > > comprehensive/prettier replacements out there is not reason enough to > > remove standard libraries. > > That's a good point. I guess it's difficult for me to think of IDLE as > an actual library. > > It's not a library. It's an application that is bundled in the standard distribution. Mark Tacoma, Washington.
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
