[Python-3000] pre-PEP: Process for reviewing/improving stdlibmodules in 3.0

[Georg Brandl]

Terry Reedy wrote:
> "Guido van Rossum" <guido at python.org> wrote in message 
> news:ca471dc20604032029u475e8e7an2b15764d1ccd008e at mail.gmail.com...
>>I didn't see any comments on this PEP.
> 
> For me, it is pretty clear and sensible, hence not much to say.
> Plus I expected others to says whatever was needed ;-).
> 
>> I'm not sure that the order in which the
>> steps are to be carried out is all that important, nor that it's
>> necessary to do this in the same order for all modules,

When I numbered the steps, I didn't think of prescribing a specific order of
the steps. I'll remove the numbers.

> Such thoughts had occurred to me, but I don't think of anything specific to 
> add.  I read the steps as strong guidelines rather than a straightjacket. 
> I imagine refinements will grow out of experience.
> 
>> but otherwise
>> the only thing that bugs me is the reference to the great stdlib
>> renaming (which I'm not sure is such a great idea).
> 
> This is the main thing that caught my attention since I did not know that 
> you had made a decision, which, obviously now, you haven't.  So I would 
> break that sentence into two:
> 
> There are proposals for a "great stdlib renaming" introducing a hierarchic 
> library
> namespace.  That possibility aside, some module's names are known ...

Yes, that's better.

> And add PEP reference if and when there is a renaming PEP.
> 
>> I expect that some of the goals (especially test coverage) are too 
>> ambitious,
>> but it's worth at least aspiring to great works!

That's exactly how the proposal is meant. I do not expect all modules to be
totally reworked either ;)

If there's no other general problem, I'll check the improved version in as PEP 3001.

Georg