> On 17 Nov 2016, at 13:42, Paul Moore <p.f.mo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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. > > 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.
Agreed. For what it’s worth, I’ll almost always find myself on the “let’s not add it to the stdlib” side of that argument, but I’m entirely willing to lose those arguments. I think we’re best served by having voices on both sides of the debate who believe themselves to be right in the *general* case but are willing to treat each case on the merits. There are certainly lots of requests for addition to the stdlib I have no objection to: for example, data structure and algorithm implementations in the standard library almost always seem like no-brainers to me. So I agree, I’m going to keep an eye on this space as we move forward, and for my part I promise to treat each case on the merits, despite my general belief of “small is beautiful”. Cory _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
