On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 2:58 PM, Raymond Hettinger <pyt...@rcn.com> wrote: > [GvR] >>>> >>>> Benjamin, what would be involved in removing it? I suppose there's the >>>> module itself, some unit tests, and some docs. (I'm not asking you to >>>> remove it yet -- but I'm asking to look into the consequences, so that >>>> we can be sure to do the right thing before releasing 3.1 final.) > > [Benjamin Peterson] >>> >>> As Raymond and Gregory have pointed out in this thread, the library is >>> quite independent as it stands now in the stlib, so should be trivial >>> to remove. Nothing else should be affected. > > Guido, have you made a firm decision to remove ipaddr.py from 3.1? > The guys on IRC are chomping at the bit.
I don't make firm decisions any more (this is something that comes with old age). Let them remove it. If it means Python will never have such functionality, because the users can't agree on the correct semantic model, so be it. It's pretty advanced stuff, some people are happy to write their own based on the RFCs, others will gladly download one of the existing contenders (ipaddr included). -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
