[stdlib-sig] Choosing a name for simplejson

Steven Bethard steven.bethard at gmail.com
Fri Apr 11 17:26:28 CEST 2008

On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 5:19 AM, Leonardo Santagada <santagada at gmail.com> wrote:
>  On 11/04/2008, at 07:42, Paul Moore wrote:
>  > On 11/04/2008, M.-A. Lemburg <mal at egenix.com> wrote:
>  >> If I've missed any arguments against the py-package idea,
>  >> please let me know.
>  >
>  > Nobody has the energy or enthusiasm to push it - write a PEP, create a
>  > 2to3 fixer, propose specific renames (ftplib -> py.ftp for example),
>  > gather opinions, summarise arguments, convince Guido, etc etc.
>  If you do that I think most people would be +1 or at least +0 on it.
>  If you think about it it is just a "py." more.
>  But please take a look at http://codespeak.net/py/dist/misc.html#the-py-std-hook
>   if you are going to change that maybe this should go in also.

If you really want a "py." prefix, then trying to add anything else to
the proposal is a bad idea. It's going to be an uphill battle as it
is. Changing semantics at the same time will almost certainly make
that battle impossible to win.

FWIW, -0 on the "py." prefix. I guess I'm in Guido's situation -- I
haven't ever personally run into the situation where I needed it. I've
never had the desire to name something similar to a stdlib module name
-- probably because at the point when I might, I realize that the
stdlib already has the module I want, named what I expected.

I'm not *in*-sane. Indeed, I am so far *out* of sane that you appear a
tiny blip on the distant coast of sanity.
 --- Bucky Katt, Get Fuzzy

More information about the stdlib-sig mailing list