At 08:56 PM 5/21/2007 +0200, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
On 2007-05-21 20:01, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
At 06:28 PM 5/21/2007 +0200, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
However, since this is not egg-specific it should probably be moved to pkgutil and get a separate PEP with detailed documentation (the link you provided doesn't really explain the concepts, reading the code helped a bit).
That doesn't really make sense in the context of the current PEP, though, which isn't to provide a general-purpose namespace package API; it's specifically about adding an existing piece of code to the stdlib, with its API intact.
You seem to indicate that you're not up to discussing the concepts implemented by the module and *integrating* them with the Python stdlib.
No, I'm saying something else. I'm saying it: 1. has nothing to do with the PEP, 2. isn't something I'm volunteering to do, and 3. would only make sense to do as part of Python 3 stdlib reorganization, if it were done at all. Now, the code is certainly under an open license, and the concepts are entirely free for anyone to use. If somebody wishes to do what you're describing, they're certainly welcome to take on that thankless task. But I personally don't see the point, since by definition that new API would have *no current users*. And the purpose of the PEP is to serve the (rather large) audience that would like to take advantage of existing software that uses the API. Thus, any proposal to alter that API faces a high entry barrier to show how the proposed changes would provide a signficant practical benefit to users. That's not even remotely similar to "take it or leave it". It might *seem* that way, of course, simply because in any proposal to change the API, there's an implicit question of why nobody proposed the change via the Distutils-SIG, sometime during the last 2+ years of discussions around that API. I remain open-minded and curious as to the possibility that someone *could* propose a meaningful change, but am also rationally skeptical that someone actually *will* come up with something that would outweigh the user benefit of keeping the already published, already discussed, already field-tested, already in-use API. For that matter, I remain open-minded and curious as to the possibility of whether someone could propose a reasonable justification for *not* including the module in the stdlib. After all, last year Fredrik Lundh surprised me with a convincing rationale for *not* including setuptools in the stdlib, which is why I backed off on doing so in 2.5, and am now proffering a much-reduced-in-scope proposal for 2.6. So, I'm perfectly willing and able to change my mind, given convincing reasons to do so. So far, though, your change suggestions haven't even explained why *you* want them, let alone why anybody else should agree. We can hardly discuss what you haven't yet said.