[Python-3000] Comments on PEP-3108: Standard Library Reorganization

Raymond Hettinger python at rcn.com
Tue Jan 8 02:16:02 CET 2008

1) The repr module is marked as hardly used, but it may have a fan base (not me). It is covered in the tutorial's guided tour, so it has been held-up as being active and useful.  There are a few hits on google's codesearch:
So, perhap this one should be discussed further before being zapped.

2) The opcode module is slated for renaming to _opcode on the theory that it doesn't have a documented interface. If needed, I can make docs for the module. I think it should continue to exist with its current name.

3) The PEP says that the idea to introduce new, theme-related packages was tabled for a variety of reasons; however, the active discussions on python-3000 suggest otherwise (i.e. discussion of a database package).  Please expand the rationale to include my earlier comment about how the Library Reference table of contents serves as a strong indicator that introducing package hierarchies will be detrimental. I'm hoping that bit of analysis doesn't get lost.

4) The Cookie module should be considered for removal. It is very short and adds little value -- half of the tools are deprecated -- it appears that this module is no longer receiving love from a maintainer that cares about its future.  Removing it will make space for a better implementation (if needed) in the future.


More information about the Python-3000 mailing list