On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 12:37 AM, Fred Drake firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
On Feb 24, 2008, at 1:12 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
I added the proposed tk package. I did merging of the modules with similar names but with or without a 'tk' prefix. Might be able to toss some out, but since I never use Tkinter I am not going to bother.
The specific re-naming proposals sound reasonable to me, though it's been a long time since I've used Tkinter.
The open issue you added to the PEP, regarding removing Tkinter (by whatever name) from the core, allowing it to be independently maintained, makes a lot of sense. Tk isn't used so much on Unix/Linux as it once was, and has never received a great welcome on Windows. The rationale for removing it, allowing it to more closely follow Tk, makes a lot of sense to me as well.
And that would make the standard library smaller, and easier to maintain. Always a good thing.
That all sounds reasonable (and the reason I think it is a good idea), but convincing python-dev in general might be tough. Especially since that would cause IDLE to not be part of the stdlib.