On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 5:19 AM, Leonardo Santagada firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
On 11/04/2008, at 07:42, Paul Moore wrote:
On 11/04/2008, M.-A. Lemburg email@example.com wrote:
If I've missed any arguments against the py-package idea, please let me know.
Nobody has the energy or enthusiasm to push it - write a PEP, create a 2to3 fixer, propose specific renames (ftplib -> py.ftp for example), gather opinions, summarise arguments, convince Guido, etc etc.
If you do that I think most people would be +1 or at least +0 on it. If you think about it it is just a "py." more.
But please take a look at http://codespeak.net/py/dist/misc.html#the-py-std-hook if you are going to change that maybe this should go in also.
If you really want a "py." prefix, then trying to add anything else to the proposal is a bad idea. It's going to be an uphill battle as it is. Changing semantics at the same time will almost certainly make that battle impossible to win.
FWIW, -0 on the "py." prefix. I guess I'm in Guido's situation -- I haven't ever personally run into the situation where I needed it. I've never had the desire to name something similar to a stdlib module name -- probably because at the point when I might, I realize that the stdlib already has the module I want, named what I expected.