On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 2:31 PM, M.-A. Lemburg firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
On 2008-04-10 23:09, Paul Moore wrote:
On 10/04/2008, Benjamin Peterson email@example.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 4:03 PM, Brett Cannon firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
So simplejson is going to be added to the stdlib (this came down from up high, which is why there has not been more of a discussion here). That means we need to choose a name. Obviously 'json' would work, but I am not sure if there is something better. Remember, we want simple so that if someone goes, "I wonder if Python has a JSON module", they can easily find it (which means no crazy package names).
+1 for "json" or "jsonlib". Simple is better.
+1 for json. Let's not have yet another xxxlib format name...
While that would be nice, I'm sure there a quite a few apps out there that already ship their own little version of a JSON library using that name. "jsonlib" already has an implementation:
BTW: What's bad about "simplejson" ?
Longer than it needs to be.
Oh, how I wished Python would finally get to use single package name for its std lib and put everything else under that name, e.g. "py". Then we could just name it "py.json" and be done with these issues once and for all.
If you want to convince Guido to allow this then that's fine; I'm +0 on the idea myself.