On 1/2/07, M.-A. Lemburg <mal@egenix.com> wrote:
On 1/2/07, M.-A. Lemburg <mal@egenix.com> wrote:
Author: brett.cannon Date: Tue Jan 2 01:02:41 2007 New Revision: 53204
Added: peps/trunk/pep-3108.txt (contents, props changed) Modified: peps/trunk/pep-0000.txt Log: Add PEP 3108: Standard Library Reorganization.
...
+Open Issues +=========== + +Consolidate dependent modules together into a single module or
On 2007-01-02 01:02, brett.cannon wrote: package?
... +Consolidate certain modules with similar themes together in a
On 2007-01-02 23:54, Brett Cannon wrote: package?
+----------------------------------------------------------------------
...
If you do follow this route, please take the chance to place the whole Python stdlib under a single package. That way we'll avoid name clashes with existing packages and modules now and in the future.
That has been suggested before (including by me) and Guido has always shot it down. That's why I left it out of this proposal.
Even if it is shot down again, it still deserves to be documented together with the reasons for being shot down.
This is a one-in-a-lifetime chance, so it would be sad if it were not taken into account.
The extra effort would be minimal - the renaming would have to be done using a script anyway and adding an extra 'from py import ' prefix to the modules wouldn't really make the renaming more complicated ;-)
I was about to start writing an open issue on this since the biggest objection from Guido I could find on this topic is http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2002-July/026409.html , but then it started to feel like a separate PEP to me. So I think I am going to pass on taking on this topic and let someone else tackle it in a PEP. Sorry, MAL, but I need to worry about my sanity on this one. =) -Brett