On Sep 15, 2009, at 2:53 PM, 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)
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)
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.)
To set the record straight:
I'm all for clearly marking 'old' modules in the documentation. When I
started with Python, I remember not knowing which module to use from
the selection in stdlib. I'm also all for pointing to alternatives on
PyPI.
I'm also fine with removing truly obsolete modules (macpath, archaic
audio and image support). I understand the need of keeping those
around for people that truly need them, however I think they belong
somewhere else, not in the stdlib.
As for adding new modules, I don't want the bleeding edge - let de
facto standards emerge, then they can be blessed and included. I'm -1
on creating a stdlib-bleeding. A pointer in the documentation to a
module that is considered best of breed for a specific job should be
adequate.
Sorry if I haven't expressed this clearly before.
_______________________________________________
stdlib-sig mailing list
stdlib-sig@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/stdlib-sig
