<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 1/4/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">M.-A. Lemburg</b> <<a href="mailto:mal@egenix.com">mal@egenix.com</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
On 2007-01-03 01:42, Brett Cannon wrote:<br>> On 1/2/07, M.-A. Lemburg <<a href="mailto:mal@egenix.com">mal@egenix.com</a>> wrote:<br>>> >> > +Open Issues<br>>> >> > +===========<br>
>> >> > +<br>>> >> > +Consolidate dependent modules together into a single module or<br>>> >> package?<br>>> >> > ...<br>>> >> > +Consolidate certain modules with similar themes together in a
<br>>> package?<br>>> >> ><br>>> +----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>>> >> > ...<br>>> >><br>>> >> If you do follow this route, please take the chance to place
<br>>> >> the whole Python stdlib under a single package. That way we'll<br>>> >> avoid name clashes with existing packages and modules now and<br>>> >> in the future.<br>>> >
<br>>> ><br>>> > That has been suggested before (including by me) and Guido has always<br>>> shot<br>>> > it down. That's why I left it out of this proposal.<br>>><br>>> Even if it is shot down again, it still deserves to be documented
<br>>> together with the reasons for being shot down.<br>>><br>>> This is a one-in-a-lifetime chance, so it would be sad if it were<br>>> not taken into account.<br>>><br>>> The extra effort would be minimal - the renaming would have to be
<br>>> done using a script anyway and adding an extra 'from py import '<br>>> prefix to the modules wouldn't really make the renaming more<br>>> complicated ;-)<br>><br>><br>> I was about to start writing an open issue on this since the biggest
<br>> objection from Guido I could find on this topic is<br>> <a href="http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2002-July/026409.html">http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2002-July/026409.html</a> , but<br>
> then<br>> it started to feel like a separate PEP to me. So I think I am going to<br>> pass<br>> on taking on this topic and let someone else tackle it in a PEP. Sorry,<br>> MAL, but I need to worry about my sanity on this one. =)
<br><br>Oh well, it seemed like a perfect fit for the scope of PEP 3108.</blockquote><div><br>I know, but I honestly just don't have the energy to deal with it. If you want to spear-head the discussion and help me add it to the PEP, then that's great.
<br></div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Guido's reply seems to suggest that he's in favor of introducing<br>a multi-package stdlib structure:
<br><br>"""<br>> > I'm rejecting the proposal of a single top-level package named "python".<br>><br>> You've written that before, but you still haven't given any<br>> explanation of why a single package would be worse than a
<br>> multi-level hierarchy of modules (e.g. grouped by application<br>> space).<br><br>Because a single package doesn't have any other benefits besides<br>getting out of the way from 3rd party developers.<br><br>
At least a proper hierarchy would have the other benefits of grouping.<br>(But better make it a shallow hierarchy! remember "Flat is better<br>than nested.")<br>"""<br><br>AFAICT, he was only objecting having a single package without any
<br>extra restructuring.</blockquote><div><br>Yep. PEP 3108 does have some basic package suggestions in the Open Issues section and people seem to support them. I will be making a separate push for them on python-3000 once the whole discussion of what modules to remove has settled down.
<br></div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Then again, the post is from 2002 - so things may have changed.</blockquote><div>
<br>Maybe.<br></div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">There have been a couple of attempts to reorg the stdlib into<br>packages, but AFAIR, I see, all of them were withdrawn
<br>due to the problem of finding a suitable grouping (often enough,<br>a module would be suitable for more than just one functional<br>package, e.g. urllib would fit "io" as well as "net") or<br>lack of support from the developers.
</blockquote><div><br>Yep, that's what has happened. <br></div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Now that we're discussing moving the include files into
<br>a subdirectory (for much the same reasons), I think it's<br>time to reboot the discussion of a Python package with or<br>without possible subpackages.</blockquote><div><br>Well, perhaps other people want to show support if they like the idea? I am personally split down the middle either way.
<br><br>-Brett<br></div></div><br>