On 2007-01-02 23:54, Brett Cannon wrote:
> On 1/2/07, M.-A. Lemburg <mal@egenix.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 2007-01-02 01:02, brett.cannon 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
>> package?
>> > ...
>> > +Consolidate certain modules with similar themes together in a 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 ;-)

> Together with absolute imports this also improves the readability
>> of modules since it becomes immediately clear where the imported code
>> is coming from.
>>
>> Note that as side-effect of this it becomes a lot harder to manipulate
>> PYTHONPATH to trick Python into loading a standard module from a
>> non-standard location, improving security and robustness of the
>> Python installations.