[Python-Dev] pep-3108.txt

[Brett Cannon]

On 1/4/07, M.-A. Lemburg <mal at egenix.com> wrote:
>
> On 2007-01-03 01:42, Brett Cannon wrote:
> > On 1/2/07, M.-A. Lemburg <mal at egenix.com> wrote:
> >> >> > +Open Issues
> >> >> > +===========
> >> >> > +
> >> >> > +Consolidate dependent modules together into a single module or
> >> >> package?
> >> >> > ...
> >> >> > +Consolidate certain modules with similar themes together in a
> >> package?
> >> >> >
> >> +----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >> > ...
> >> >>
> >> >> If you do follow this route, please take the chance to place
> >> >> the whole Python stdlib under a single package. That way we'll
> >> >> avoid name clashes with existing packages and modules now and
> >> >> in the future.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > That has been suggested before (including by me) and Guido has always
> >> shot
> >> > it down.  That's why I left it out of this proposal.
> >>
> >> Even if it is shot down again, it still deserves to be documented
> >> together with the reasons for being shot down.
> >>
> >> This is a one-in-a-lifetime chance, so it would be sad if it were
> >> not taken into account.
> >>
> >> The extra effort would be minimal - the renaming would have to be
> >> done using a script anyway and adding an extra 'from py import '
> >> prefix to the modules wouldn't really make the renaming more
> >> complicated ;-)
> >
> >
> > I was about to start writing an open issue on this since the biggest
> > objection from Guido I could find on this topic is
> > http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2002-July/026409.html , but
> > then
> > it started to feel like a separate PEP to me.  So I think I am going to
> > pass
> > on taking on this topic and let someone else tackle it in a PEP.  Sorry,
> > MAL, but I need to worry about my sanity on this one.  =)
>
> Oh well, it seemed like a perfect fit for the scope of PEP 3108.


I know, but I honestly just don't have the energy to deal with it.  If you
want to spear-head the discussion and help me add it to the PEP, then that's
great.

Guido's reply seems to suggest that he's in favor of introducing
> a multi-package stdlib structure:
>
> """
> > > I'm rejecting the proposal of a single top-level package named
> "python".
> >
> > You've written that before, but you still haven't given any
> > explanation of why a single package would be worse than a
> > multi-level hierarchy of modules (e.g. grouped by application
> > space).
>
> Because a single package doesn't have any other benefits besides
> getting out of the way from 3rd party developers.
>
> At least a proper hierarchy would have the other benefits of grouping.
> (But better make it a shallow hierarchy!  remember "Flat is better
> than nested.")
> """
>
> AFAICT, he was only objecting having a single package without any
> extra restructuring.


Yep.  PEP 3108 does have some basic package suggestions in the Open Issues
section and people seem to support them.  I will be making a separate push
for them on python-3000 once the whole discussion of what modules to remove
has settled down.

Then again, the post is from 2002 - so things may have changed.


Maybe.

There have been a couple of attempts to reorg the stdlib into
> packages, but AFAIR, I see, all of them were withdrawn
> due to the problem of finding a suitable grouping (often enough,
> a module would be suitable for more than just one functional
> package, e.g. urllib would fit "io" as well as "net") or
> lack of support from the developers.


Yep, that's what has happened.

Now that we're discussing moving the include files into
> a subdirectory (for much the same reasons), I think it's
> time to reboot the discussion of a Python package with or
> without possible subpackages.


Well, perhaps other people want to show support if they like the idea?  I am
personally split down the middle either way.

-Brett
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20070104/158841bb/attachment.htm