[Python-Dev] Great Renaming? What is the goal?

Moshe Zadka Moshe Zadka <mzadka@geocities.com>
Wed, 29 Mar 2000 01:24:29 +0200 (IST)

On Tue, 28 Mar 2000, Andrew M. Kuchling wrote:

> Peter Funk quoted:
> >Fredrik Lundh:
> >> I'm not so sure that Python really needs a simple reorganization
> >> of the existing set of standard library modules.  just moving the
> >> modules around won't solve the real problems with the 1.5.2 std
> >> library...
> >Right.  I propose to leave the namespace flat.
> I third that comment.  Arguments against reorganizing for 1.6:

Let me just note that my original great renaming proposal was titled
"1.7". I'm certain I don't want it to affect the 1.6 release -- my god,
it's almost alpha time and we don't even know how to reorganize.
Strictly 1.7.

>   4) We wanted to get 1.6 out fairly quickly, and therefore limited 
>   the number of features that would get in.  (Vide the "Python 1.6
>   timing" thread last ... November, was it?)  Packagizing is feature
>   creep that'll slow things down

Oh yes. I'm waiting for that 1.6....I wouldn't want to stall it for the

But this is a good chance as any to discuss reasons, before strategies.
Here's why I believe we should re-organize Python modules:
 -- modules fall quite naturally into subpackages. Reducing the number
    of toplevel modules will lessen the clutter
 -- it would be easier to synchronize documentation and code (think
    "automatically generated documentation")
 -- it would enable us to move toward a CPAN-like module repository,
    together with the dist-sig efforts.

Moshe Zadka <mzadka@geocities.com>. 
http://www.linux.org.il -- we put the penguin in .com