On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 8:38 AM, Paul Moore <p.f.moore@gmail.com> wrote:

On 4 June 2013 12:26, Calvin Spealman <ironfroggy@gmail.com> wrote:

...

At this point I would argue against any new modules by default. How does the cost and liability of yaml in the standard library make up for such a ring benefit as excluding one little line from my requirements.txt?

Windows users without compilers can't "just add one little line". IIRC, Windows users *with* compilers have to fiddle around with dependent libraries in a messy way. Users without compilers working on prerelease versions of Python can't find prebuilt binaries anyway. Corporate environments may not allow 3rd party libraries. Some environments require pure-python (non-stdlib) code. Etc, etc.

The proposal was about adding, explicitly, only a pure-python YAML library, so the compiler and binary related arguments don't apply here. Also, the fact that we don't have practical packaging solutions to this is something that, hopefully, we'll fix and so I think, until then, adding new modules should be scrutinized with the question: Are we just doing this to get around packaging limitations? New modules have a pretty high bar to adoption in any case. Let's not make

it impossibly high by assuming (wrongly) that there are no difficulties involved in external dependencies.

Paul.

-- Read my blog! I depend on your acceptance of my opinion! I am interesting! http://techblog.ironfroggy.com/ Follow me if you're into that sort of thing: http://www.twitter.com/ironfroggy