[Python-Dev] Great Renaming - Straw Man 0.2 (original) (raw)

David Ascher DavidA@ActiveState.com
Sun, 26 Mar 2000 10:09:15 -0800

If a module does not make obvious sense to be in a package, then it should not be there. For example: locale. That is not about numbers or about text. It has general utility. If there was an i18n package, then it would go there. Otherwise, don't force it somewhere else. Other packages are similar, so don't single out my comment about locale.

I maintain that a general principle re: what the aim of this reorg is is needed before the partitioning of the space can make sense.

What Moshe and Ping have is a good stab at partitioning of a subspace of the total space of Python modules and packages, i.e., the standard library.

If we limit the aim of the reorg to cover just that subspace, then that's fine and Ping's proposal seems grossly fine to me.

If we want to have a Perl-like packaging, then we need to take into account all known Python modules of general utility, such as the database modules, the various GUI packages, the mx* packages, Aaron's work, PIL, etc., etc. Ignoring those means that the dataset used to decide the partitioning function is highly biased. Given the larger dataset, locale might very well fit in a not-toplevel location.

I know that any organizational scheme is going to be optimal at best at its inception, and that as history happens, it will become suboptimal. However, it's important to know what the space being partitioned is supposed to look like.

A final comment: there's a history and science to this kind of organization, which is part of library science. I suspect there is quite a bit of knowledge available as to organizing principles to do it right. It would be nice if someone could research it a bit and summarize the basic principles to the rest of us.

I agree with Greg that we need high-level input from Guido on this.

--david 'academic today' ascher