Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan <at> gmail.com> writes: > standard library is a mistake - the PyXML debacle shows us that. If > the API is different (even if that means a strict subset), then it > needs a different name.
I'm not really hung up about a specific name - what's in a name? > It has nothing to do with code quality, and everything to do with > being able to explain the migration plan to people. I *can* say to Code quality is pertinent when it's the subtext behind "experimental". > them "pip is going to cherry pick parts of distlib and potentially > other libraries and make them available as 'piplib', which will be > installed automatically when you install pip". At the moment, I no > longer feel I can say "distlib will become the reference > implementation". Note that there's also the bootstrapping issue with > having pip depend on an external library: having the core library *in > pip* makes that problem go away. > When I made that suggestion, I misunderstood your plans for distlib. > If pip are only adopting a subset of it, they can't use the same name, > or people will get confused. I can certainly see that there are ways to avoid confusion. But never mind, I see that you've made your decision. I would have hoped for a more transparent decision process, but that's probably due to my slowness of uptake. Regards, Vinay Sajip _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
