On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 at 12:53, Michael Foord wrote:
There seem to be three positions:
1) Virtually no changes or improvements to the standard library at all -
nothing beyond maintaining compatibility with language changes. (Laura)
I think you misrepresent Laura's opinion. She wants modules that
are mature (stable) to remain in the library, but I did not hear her
object to the addition of improvements. (She said perhaps she should
have objected to optparse, but that was a hypothetical conditioned on
getopt being removed...if getopt remains (as she expected it would)
she had/has no objection to optparse (or, presumably, argparse)).
2) New modules are acceptable but old modules should remain forever.
(Antoine)
3) New modules are acceptable and eventual removal of old modules is
desirable. (Brett, myself, Jesse and Frank)
Laura's objection was to this label of "old modules", as if all modules
beyond a certain age were automatically bad and should be removed.
There is an important distinction to be made between "old, broken,
and not maintained", and "old, mature, and functional".
Marc-Andre seems to fall somewhere between 1 and 2 and Orestis wants the
bleeding edge. (Sorry for these caricatures but it seems approximately
right.)
I'd still like to write a longer piece on why I think 1) isn't possible and
3) is preferable to 2) - but the basic points have all been covered in this
thread anyway.
Is anyone actually advocating (1)? I doubt it.
I think Laura's post was excellent and is worth a careful (re)reading to
understand her points.
--David
_______________________________________________
stdlib-sig mailing list
stdlib-sig@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/stdlib-sig
