[Python-Dev] Discussing the Great Library Reorganization

[Guido van Rossum]

On 3/29/06, Brett Cannon <brett at python.org> wrote:
> On 3/29/06, Anthony Baxter <anthony at interlink.com.au> wrote:
> > On Thursday 30 March 2006 08:39, Brett Cannon wrote:
> > > Here is a place I think we can take a queue from Java.  I think we
> > > should have a root package, 'py', and then have subpackages within
> > > that.
> >
> > org.python.stdlib, surely? <wink>
> >
> > I don't have a problem with reorganising the standard library, but
> > what's the motivation for moving everything under a new root? Is it
> > just to allow people to unambigiously get hold of something from the
> > stdlib, rather than following the normal search path?
>
> Yes, it's to make it obvious the module came from the stdlib instead
> of another package.

Dream on. The Java "standard" namespace is polluted with weirdnesses
like "javax" (some kind of extensions) "org.xml", etc.

> > Doesn't the
> > absolute/relative import PEP solve this problem?
>
> Basically, but I think it wouldn't hurt to have a specific package
> name for the stdlib for in-code documenting instead of thinking that
> perhaps someone just stuck a module directly on sys.path .

Actually it doesn't.

> > And what does 'from py import *' do, anyway?
>
> Not much.  =)  It would import the top-level of a bunch of subpackages
> which will most likely not get you to a module, class, or function and
> thus couldn't be used to resolve to anything.

I'd like to nip this discussion in the bud; it's just going to waste a
lot of developers time.

We need more people thinking seriously about the process and meta
issues for Python 3000. (Yes, I know, I need to catch up with some
threads myself. Hopefully next week when I'm no longer a single
parent.)

--
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)