[Python-ideas] Making the stdlib consistent again

Pavol Lisy pavol.lisy at gmail.com
Tue Jul 26 03:02:58 EDT 2016

On 7/26/16, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 26 July 2016 at 05:23, Paul Moore <p.f.moore at gmail.com> wrote:
>> So overall, I think practicality beats purity here, and such a change
>> is not worth the effort.

> We did go through the effort for the threading module, as we had the
> problem there that multiprocessing was PEP-8 compliant (with aliases
> for threading compatibility), but threading only had the old pre-PEP-8
> names.

> The "isn't worth it" mainly comes from the fact that these APIs
> generally *were* compliant with the coding guidelines that existed at
> the time they were first written, it's just that the guidelines and
> community expectations have changed since then, so they represent
> things like "good Python design style circa 1999" (e.g. unittest,
> logging) rather than "good Python style for today". So if you say
> "let's update them to 2016 conventions" today, by 2026 you'll just
> have the same problem again.

How could snake survive if not moulting regularly, when old skin is outgrown?

I am not argue with you! Just thinking about future of this language
and see some analogies in biology. And sorry just could not resist to
share this little idea! :)

More information about the Python-ideas mailing list