[Python-Dev] module reorg (was: 1.6 job list)

[Greg Stein]

On Fri, 24 Mar 2000, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > > One thing you can definitely do now which breaks no code: propose a
> > > package hierarchy for the standard library.
> > 
> > I already did!
> > 
> > http://www.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2000-February/003761.html
> > 
> > *grumble*
> 
> You've got to be kidding.  That's not a package hierarchy proposal,
> it's just one package (network).
>
> Without a comprehensive proposal I'm against a partial reorganization:
> without a destination we can't start marching.

Not kidding at all. I said before that I don't think we can do everything
all at once. I *do* think this is solvable with a greedy algorithm rather
than waiting for some nebulous completion point.

> Naming things is very contentious -- everybody has an opinion.  To
> pick the right names you must see things in perspective.

Sure. And those diverse opinions are why I don't believe it is possible to
do all at once. The task is simply too large to tackle in one shot. IMO,
it must be solved incrementally. I'm not even going to attempt to try to
define a hierarchy for all those modules. I count 137 on my local system.
Let's say that I *do* try... some are going to end up "forced" rather than
obeying some obvious grouping. If you do it a chunk at a time, then you
get the obvious, intuitive groupings. Try for more, and you just bung it
all up.

For discussion's sake: can you provide a rationale for doing it all at
once? In the current scenario, modules just appear at some point. After a
partial reorg, some modules appear at a different point. "No big whoop."
Just because module A is in a package doesn't imply that module B must
also be in a package.

Cheers,
-g

-- 
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/