From what I have read on edu-sig, I believe it would be a huge mistake to remove IDLE from the Python standard library.

On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 9:41 PM, Terry Reedy <> wrote:
On 2/20/2013 6:12 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 17:07:57 -0500
Terry Reedy <> wrote:

On the other hand, I agree that a PyPI preview release of a rewrite of
IDLE to use the newer ttk widgets would be a good idea. But I personally
would base such a project on 3.3 and consider whether it should require
tcl/tk 8.6 rather than 8.5. And I would only put it in the stdlib in a
new release (perhaps alongside the existing IDLE for at least one
release). So this PEP is not relevance to such a project.

The only thing relevant to such a project is to find someone actually
motivated to do it.

Right. That I what I was trying to say.

What is IDLE's actual maintenance activity, exactly?

I am not sure whether you are asking about volume or focus. A year ago, focus was on bugs that caused IDLE to quit because of an uncaught exception. When IDLE is started on Windows from an icon, this looks like a crash because there is no visible traceback or exit message. Recently, other issues have been worked on. In the last 5 months, activity has picked up and there are about 40 issues in 3.4 misc/news whose commit message contains 'idle'.

> I am sympathetic to the PEP

Even though I am willing for the PEP to be rejected, great. I say this because I think it better for the community at large, even though a strict policy might be easier, on net, for developers.

but, really, thinking IDLE's development is hampered by Python's
release process is *completely* ridiculous.

I do not believe I have said that and certainly have not meant to say that. What I have said or meant to say is that uncertainly and disagreement about how it does and should fit into the release process can be a hindrance.

> If you want IDLE development
to happen, please stop talking and start reviewing / committing patches.

I have, of course, done some of both in the past year, even if not currently. As I remember, the review process for at least one issue got hung up on whether a (small) change was a 'bugfix' or 'enhancement' and if the latter, whether it could go into all versions or just default. As we move from obvious bug issue to more ambiguous issues, this question would come up more often.

FTR, I'm personally +1 on yanking IDLE out of 3.4.

That would tend to keep 3.4 out of some classrooms.  See, for example,
from a French college teacher. (The issue was fixed by a tk fix last March.) But of course, this is a different subject.

Terry Jan Reedy

Python-ideas mailing list