[Python-ideas] Move Demo scripts under Lib
mal at egenix.com
Tue Oct 26 16:15:47 CEST 2010
Alexander Belopolsky wrote:
> I originally proposed this under the Demo and Tools cleanup issue .
> The idea was to create a new package "demo" in the standard library
> which will host selected demo programs or modules that currently
> reside in the Demo/ directory of the source distribution. There are
> several advantages to this approach:
> 1. Discoverability. Currently, various distributions place demo
> scripts in different places or not include them at all. There is no
> easy way for an end user to discover them. With a demo package, there
> will be a natural place in the python manual to document demo scripts
> and users will be able to run them using -m option. IDEs will be able
> to present demo source code and documentation consistently.
> 2. Test coverage. One of the points raised in  was that Demo
> scripts are not routinely tested. While it is not strictly necessary
> to move them under Lib to enable testing, doing so will put these
> scripts on the same footing as the rest of the standard library
> modules eliminating an unnecessary barrier to writing tests.
> 3. Quality/relevance. Many scripts in Demo are very old and do not
> reflect modern best practices. By picking and choosing what goes to
> Lib/demo, we can improve the demo collection without removing older
> scripts that some may find useful.
> One objection raised to this idea was that Demo scripts do not have
> the same stability of the API and backward compatibility requirements
> as the rest of the standard library. I don't think this is a serious
> issue. As long as we don't start importing demo modules from other
> stdlib modules, there is no impact on the stdlib itself from changing
> demo APIs. Users may be warned that their production programs should
> not depend on the demo modules. I think the word "demo" itself
> suggests that.
> What do you think?
Calling a stdlib package "demo" or "example" is not a good idea,
since those are rather common package names in existing
I also don't really see the point in moving *scripts* to the stdlib.
The lib modules are usually not executable or meant for execution
and you'd normally expect scripts to be under .../bin rather than
Why don't you turn the ones you find useful into PyPI packages
to install separately ?
>  http://bugs.python.org/issue7962#msg111677
Professional Python Services directly from the Source (#1, Oct 26 2010)
>>> Python/Zope Consulting and Support ... http://www.egenix.com/
>>> mxODBC.Zope.Database.Adapter ... http://zope.egenix.com/
>>> mxODBC, mxDateTime, mxTextTools ... http://python.egenix.com/
::: Try our new mxODBC.Connect Python Database Interface for free ! ::::
eGenix.com Software, Skills and Services GmbH Pastor-Loeh-Str.48
D-40764 Langenfeld, Germany. CEO Dipl.-Math. Marc-Andre Lemburg
Registered at Amtsgericht Duesseldorf: HRB 46611
More information about the Python-ideas