Paul Moore <p.f.moore <at> gmail.com> writes: > On 5/7/06, Greg Wilson <gvwilson <at> cs.utoronto.ca> wrote: > > > From: Greg Ewing <greg.ewing <at> canterbury.ac.nz> > > > There is another alternative -- move both Tk and IDLE out of the core > > > into separate downloads. > > > > +1. > > If the implication here is that there is *no* GUI in the Python > standard library, I'd be cautious of this (-0, probably). Things like > the pydoc server use a little GUI window. The Twisted installer (IIRC) > uses a Gui window while running the postinstall script, etc. > Basically, if a generic Python script wants some form of GUI. Tk is > available. > > I've no problem with replacing Tk with an alternative. But there > should be a GUI of some sort.
I had an odd thought about this last night. It seems to me that, for the most part, any application that requires a UI can be an external package that is installed via easy_install. Given that we are going to finally *solve* the problem of making it easy to add external packages (I hope) there's a much weaker argument for making something part of the std lib. However, there is one type of application that I can think of that is both GUI-based and at the same time makes a strong case for its inclusion in the standard distribution: A visual debugger. I don't think we really need an IDE, but a debugger that is at least able to show source code, call stack, and local variables in a window would be extremely useful. So my thought is this: How hard would it be to make a curses-based debugger? This gives me what I want, without requiring a GUI toolkit be shipped with the standard libs. (Could that be a possible Summer of Code project?) -- Talin _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
