[stdlib-sig] Choosing a name for simplejson
qgallet at gmail.com
Fri Apr 11 08:33:42 CEST 2008
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 7:09 PM, Paul Moore <p.f.moore at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/04/2008, Benjamin Peterson <musiccomposition at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 4:03 PM, Brett Cannon <brett at python.org> wrote:
> > > So simplejson is going to be added to the stdlib (this came down from
> > > up high, which is why there has not been more of a discussion here).
> > > That means we need to choose a name. Obviously 'json' would work,
> > > I am not sure if there is something better. Remember, we want simple
> > > so that if someone goes, "I wonder if Python has a JSON module",
> > > can easily find it (which means no crazy package names).
> > +1 for "json" or "jsonlib". Simple is better.
> +1 for json. Let's not have yet another xxxlib format name...
+1 for json as well. I agree the lib suffix should be avoided whenever
> stdlib-sig mailing list
> stdlib-sig at python.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the stdlib-sig