On 17 November 2016 at 12:27, Cory Benfield <c...@lukasa.co.uk> wrote: > This isn’t me disagreeing with you, just me pointing out that the fuzziness > around this makes me nervous. It has been my experience that a large number > of protocol implementations in the standard library are already struggling to > meet their maintenance goals, and I’d be pretty reluctant about wanting to > add to that burden.
The fuzziness is a clear and definite issue here. My perspective is that this far, Python (specifically the core dev team[1]) has done a good job of balancing that fuzziness. I don't expect this to ever be a simple decision to make. All I ask is that we avoid countering a complex decision process with an over-simple guideline (specifically, that "things don't need to go into the stdlib because of pip/PyPI[2]). Regardless of how things go in the long term, I think it's good to keep the debates open in this area, and I appreciate your comments. I'll certainly be thinking about my personal answers to the questions you raised, and I expect I'll change at least some of my views as a result. Paul [1] Even though I'm a core dev, I view myself as a "normal user" in this context, and take no personal credit for the scope of the stdlib. [2] Ironically, I'm also a pip developer, so if I seem confused, I claim the right to be :-) _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
