[Python-3000] We should write a PEP on what goes into the stdlib

Ron Adam rrr at ronadam.com
Tue Jun 13 19:32:08 CEST 2006

Brett Cannon wrote:

> So, to start this discussion, here are my ideas...
> First, the modules must have been in the wild and used by the 
> community.  This has worked well so far by making sure the code is 
> stable and that the API is good.

Those modules and packages that necessary parts of python are dependent 
on should probably be near the top of your list.

Just what is included as necessary parts could be discussed.  Possibly a 
short list would include...

* Modules needed to manage, test and document the python installation.

* Modules needed to run, edit and test python programs.

* Modules needed to document programs

* Modules needed to package, install and distribute programs.

* Modules needed for platform compatibility.

After including these, and those modules and packages these are 
dependent on, there might not be all that much to remove.  Which would 

* Modules and packages that are so popular that it doesn't make since to 
not install them.

All else could probably either be an optionally installed package 
included in the distribution or as an easy to install egg package.

I don't think determining what goes into the stdlib is as difficult as 
people think.  It all seems pretty practical to me (Although not trivial 
to do when taken as a whole)

Maybe adding a few guide lines as to what should not be in the standard 
lib would be a good way to prevent it from growing to large.  Ie, 
modules that haven't been tested sufficiently in the wild or by python 
DEV, or modules rarely needed or used... etc.  Listing the inverse of 
these as reasons for inclusion seems to be the suggested approach here, 
  but that seems to me to be working from the wrong end in my humble 


More information about the Python-3000 mailing list