[Python-3000] packages in the stdlib

[Jim Jewett]

On 5/31/06, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis at pitrou.net> wrote:
> Le mercredi 31 mai 2006 à 09:57 -0700, Brett Cannon a écrit :

> > That might be true of http, but what about modules with a more
> > ambiguous name?

> Then perhaps the name can be made less ambiguous ;)
> For example "ElementTree" could be named "xmltree", or whatever.

(1)  It isn't really limited to xml elements.
(2)  The fact that there is disagreement means that any specific name
will be hard to find when browsing for relevant modules -- as when
learning the language.  But if there are only 5-30 toplevel packages,
people have a better chance of knowing which collection to look in.
(If borderline modules could exist or be referenced in multiple
namespaces, it might get even easier, so long as it was clear that
these were references rather than alternates.)

> No, but it still would be additional baggage to remember.
> It is clear a "deque" is a collection and a "heapq" is a specific kind
> of data structure,

Not to me.

I had no idea what a "deque" was until I read the module, as I would
never have used that particular abbreviation.

My first assumption about heapq was that it implemented a Queue
interface using a heap, and was therefore threading related.

> The documentation can be topically structured, which is indeed handy
> when discovering Python and its stdlib, but why force the categorization
> on the programmer while it does not bring any benefits?

Are you assuming that people will learn about python by printing out
hundreds of pages and reading them, instead of just starting in?

I actually did that, but I know it is only because I'm strange.  (And
I did much of the reading on a computerless vacation.)   After the
initial reading, I have used help at the interactive prompt; if I have
to squint at the separate documentation, I get unhappy.

-jJ