[Python-Dev] Discussing the Great Library Reorganization (original) (raw)

Guido van Rossum guido at python.org
Thu Mar 30 01:40:56 CEST 2006

On 3/29/06, Brett Cannon <brett at python.org> wrote:

On 3/29/06, Anthony Baxter <anthony at interlink.com.au> wrote: > On Thursday 30 March 2006 08:39, Brett Cannon wrote: > > Here is a place I think we can take a queue from Java. I think we > > should have a root package, 'py', and then have subpackages within > > that. > > org.python.stdlib, surely? > > I don't have a problem with reorganising the standard library, but > what's the motivation for moving everything under a new root? Is it > just to allow people to unambigiously get hold of something from the > stdlib, rather than following the normal search path?

Yes, it's to make it obvious the module came from the stdlib instead of another package.

Dream on. The Java "standard" namespace is polluted with weirdnesses like "javax" (some kind of extensions) "org.xml", etc.

> Doesn't the > absolute/relative import PEP solve this problem?

Basically, but I think it wouldn't hurt to have a specific package name for the stdlib for in-code documenting instead of thinking that perhaps someone just stuck a module directly on sys.path .

Actually it doesn't.

> And what does 'from py import *' do, anyway?

Not much. =) It would import the top-level of a bunch of subpackages which will most likely not get you to a module, class, or function and thus couldn't be used to resolve to anything.

I'd like to nip this discussion in the bud; it's just going to waste a lot of developers time.

We need more people thinking seriously about the process and meta issues for Python 3000. (Yes, I know, I need to catch up with some threads myself. Hopefully next week when I'm no longer a single parent.)

-- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list