On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 7:09 PM, Paul Moore <<a href="mailto:p.f.moore@gmail.com">p.f.moore@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="Ih2E3d">On 10/04/2008, Benjamin Peterson <<a href="mailto:musiccomposition@gmail.com">musiccomposition@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 4:03 PM, Brett Cannon <<a href="mailto:brett@python.org">brett@python.org</a>> wrote:<br>
> > So simplejson is going to be added to the stdlib (this came down from<br>
> > up high, which is why there has not been more of a discussion here).<br>
> > That means we need to choose a name. Obviously 'json' would work, but<br>
> > I am not sure if there is something better. Remember, we want simple<br>
> > so that if someone goes, "I wonder if Python has a JSON module", they<br>
> > can easily find it (which means no crazy package names).<br>
><br>
> +1 for "json" or "jsonlib". Simple is better.<br>
<br>
</div>+1 for json. Let's not have yet another xxxlib format name...<br>
<font color="#888888"></font></blockquote><div><br>+1 for json as well. I agree the lib suffix should be avoided whenever possible.<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<font color="#888888"><br>
Paul.<br>
</font><div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c">_______________________________________________<br>
stdlib-sig mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:stdlib-sig@python.org">stdlib-sig@python.org</a><br>
<a href="http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/stdlib-sig" target="_blank">http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/stdlib-sig</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>