[Python-Dev] Docs of weak stdlib modules should encourage exploration of 3rd-party alternatives (original) (raw)

Glenn Linderman v+python at g.nevcal.com
Tue Mar 13 05:01:31 CET 2012

On 3/12/2012 8:48 PM, C. Titus Brown wrote:

I feel like there's a middle ground where stable, long-term go-to modules could be mentioned, though. I don't spend a lot of time browsing PyPI, but I suspect almost everyone spends a certain amount of time in the Python docs (which is a testimony to their quality IMO). So I'm in favor of conservative link-outs but without any deprecating language.

Any outward links will be somewhat intrusive, and their existence will admit that the stdlib module is limited in some fashion, such that someone invested time and effort to create an alternative.

On the other hand, if there were a standard place for external links to alternatives, say, perhaps, at the bottom of the left-hand table of contents for the module, and if it were Wiki-like (anyone could add an alternative) then the core developers wouldn't need to monitor and approve the alternatives. The alternatives would not be listed in the TOC, only the link, if alternatives were submitted. At the link target Wiki, there could be various alternatives, pro/con comments, user votes, whatever seems useful.

If there is truly a desire by core developers to recommend specific alternative modules, then wording like the following seems neutral to me:

Alternatives to this module exist at [list of links], which may be updated more regularly than the stdlib. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20120312/45424919/attachment.html>

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list