[IronPython] Additional modules to ship with IronPython 2.7.1?

Brian Curtin brian.curtin at gmail.com
Wed Feb 16 16:18:35 CET 2011

On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 08:30, Jeff Hardy <jdhardy at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 12:47 PM, Vernon Cole <vernondcole at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Dear Group:
> >    I would like to start a discussion about adding modules to the
> IronPython
> > distribution which are not in the C-Python standard library. The idea
> would
> > be to include more batteries.  (FePy started out to do that, but has not
> > been seriously updated since IronPython 2.0 came out with a real, genuine
> > Windows installer.)  Good idea, or Bad?
> We certainly don't have to restrict ourselves to the same set of
> batteries as CPython. However, I'd be cautious about adding in too
> much simply because we don't have a huge pool of committers at the
> moment.

Something to be careful of is inclusion of external code that still evolves
outside of the stdlib. When I install 2.7.1 complete with xyz library, a
week later when the author comes out with a great new feature, my install is
already out of date.

Someone then fixes a bug in the stdlib xyz, which has to propagate to the
external version. Along with that, bugs fixed in the external version need
to be integrated in the stdlib version, so you'd occasionally have to dump
from external, all while being careful of not sneaking in features in
bug-fix releases, e.g., for 2.7.2.

Among other things, that's one of the reasons CPython is against further
inclusion of externally maintained libraries. The futures package was added
for 3.2 and a condition was that it's only home was the stdlib.

- my 0.02c USD
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/ironpython-users/attachments/20110216/3081d934/attachment.html>

More information about the Ironpython-users mailing list