[Python-3000] packages in the stdlib

Brett Cannon brett at python.org
Thu Jun 1 18:33:59 CEST 2006

On 6/1/06, Aaron Bingham <bingham at cenix-bioscience.com> wrote:
> Paul Moore wrote:
> >On 5/31/06, Brett Cannon <brett at python.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Why would a 3rd-party module be installed into the stdlib namespace?
> >>net.jabber wouldn't exist unless it was in the stdlib or the module's
> author
> >>decided to be snarky and inject their module into the stdlib namespace.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Do you really want the stdlib to "steal" all of the simple names (like
> >net, gui, data, ...)? While I don't think it's a particularly good
> >idea for 3rd party modules to use such names, I'm not too keen on
> >having them made effectively "reserved", either.
> >
> >
> I'm confused.  As far as I can see, a reserved prefix (the "py" or
> "stdlib" package others have mentioned) is the only reliable way to
> avoid naming conflicts with 3rd-party packages with a growing standard
> library.  I suspect we wll be going round and round in circles here as
> long as a reserved prefix is ruled out.  IMO, multiple reserved prefixes
> ("net", "gui", etc.) is much worse than one.  Could someone please
> explain for my sake why a single reserved prefix is not acceptable?

Guido doesn't like it.  =)  And he said he is going to ignore this topic
probably until we get a good consensus on what we want.  If we can get
almost everyone for it we may be able to convince him to change his mind.

That being said, I don't think the root name is needed if we keep the
hierarchy flat.  We have done fine so far without it.  But if we do have one
level of package organization then I think the root 'py' would be good.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-3000/attachments/20060601/ac079110/attachment-0001.html 

More information about the Python-3000 mailing list