standard libraries don't behave like standard 'libraries'

[Steven D'Aprano]

On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 00:31:57 -0800, Sriram Srinivasan wrote:

> I guess why every programming language has some kind of a 'standard
> library' built in within it.
> In my view it must not be called as a 'library' at all. what it does is
> like a 'bunch of built-in programs ready-made to do stuff'.
> 
> Lets see what a 'library' does:
> 
> 1. offers books for customers
[...]


You are describing a lending library, which is not the only sort of 
library. My personal library doesn't do any of those things. It is just a 
room with shelves filled with books.

Words in English can have more than one meaning. Horses run, 
refrigerators run, and even though they don't have either legs or motors, 
programs run too. The argument that code libraries don't behave like 
lending libraries won't get you anywhere.


> As a python user I always wanted the standard library to have such
> features so the user/developer decides to use what set of libraries he
> want.
> 
> consider the libraries for 2.5 ,2.6, 3K are all available to the user,
> the user selects what he wants with something like.
> 
> use library 2.5 or use library 2.6 etc.

Since library features are tied closely to the features available in the 
Python interpreter, the way to use library 2.5 is to use Python 2.5. You 
*might* be able to use library 2.5 with Python 2.6 or 2.4; you absolutely 
won't be able to use it with Python 1.5 or 3.1.



-- 
Steven