Re: [Python-Dev] Soliciting comments on the future of the cmd module (bpo-33233)

On 2018-04-07 02:08, Steven D'Aprano wrote: This isn't gopher, or something with serious unfixable security vulnerabilities. It works. What more needs to be said? Interesting, I'd forgotten about the module but this thread brought it from dusty backup tape back into my brain. Part of the

Re: [Python-Dev] Soliciting comments on the future of the cmd module (bpo-33233)

On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 6:54 AM, Matěj Cepl wrote: > Also, considering requests, I am still dreaming about somebody > writing some requests-like API over the standard library. What would be the difference between that and... requests? Requests still uses http.client under the

Re: [Python-Dev] Soliciting comments on the future of the cmd module (bpo-33233)

On Sat, Apr 07, 2018 at 02:50:00PM -0400, Chris Barker - NOAA Federal wrote: > Is bringing cmd2 into the standard library an option to be considered? That is discussed on the tracker. The short answer is, yes, it is considered, but no, cmd2 is not ready to come into the std lib. I recommend

Re: [Python-Dev] Soliciting comments on the future of the cmd module (bpo-33233)

On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 at 11:50 Chris Barker - NOAA Federal < chris.bar...@noaa.gov> wrote: > Is bringing cmd2 into the standard library an option to be considered? > Anything can be considered. ;) > > That water get included batteries and a more featurefull and supported lib. > > It seems (on

Re: [Python-Dev] Soliciting comments on the future of the cmd module (bpo-33233)

Thanks for everyone's interest but, please, let's keep the discussion in one place as originally requested: > If you have an opinion about either recommending cmd2 in the cmd docs and/or > deprecating cmd in 3.8, please comment on https://bugs.python.org/issue33233. You'll find some answers to

Re: [Python-Dev] Soliciting comments on the future of the cmd module (bpo-33233)

Is bringing cmd2 into the standard library an option to be considered? That water get included batteries and a more featurefull and supported lib. It seems (on python-ideas) that people are often told, when they have a suggestion for the stdlib, that they put it on pypi and see if it gains

Re: [Python-Dev] Soliciting comments on the future of the cmd module (bpo-33233)

On 2018-04-07, 00:13 GMT, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > Just in the last week, I've been reminded twice that many > people using Python do so where they cannot just arbitarily > pip install , and if a library isn't in the std lib, > they can't use it without a lot of pain: 100% agree + one of the

Re: [Python-Dev] Soliciting comments on the future of the cmd module (bpo-33233)

> On Apr 6, 2018, at 3:02 PM, Ned Deily wrote: > > We could be even bolder and officially deprecate "cmd" and consider closing > open enhancement issues for it on b.p.o." FWIW, the pdb module depends on the cmd module. Also, I still teach people how to use cmd and I think

Re: [Python-Dev] Soliciting comments on the future of the cmd module (bpo-33233)

On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 06:02:18PM -0400, Ned Deily wrote: > I suggest we consider at a minimum adding a "See also:" note > referencing cmd2 to the cmd documentation in the Standard Library > document, similar to what we do for the third-party "requests" module > in the "urllib.request"

[Python-Dev] Soliciting comments on the future of the cmd module (bpo-33233)

In https://bugs.python.org/issue33233, I have proposed considering deprecation for the cmd module: "The cmd module in the standard library has languished for many years. In the mean time, third-party replacements for it have arisen. Perhaps the most popular is cmd2 which seems to be actively