On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 5:31 PM, Diez B. Roggisch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > May I insist? By the criteria you've mentioned so far, nothing rules > > out 'ext'. If it's still a bad idea, there's a reason. What is it? > > You imply that just because something is somehow working and even useful > for a *some* people (some being maybe only you) that it would be worth > including in the python standard lib. It is not. > > There are no really formal rules for inclusion, but these are certainly > rules of thumb that are being considered: > > - is it useful for *a lot of people* > > - will it be mantained and maintainable for "ever" once it is part of > the standard distribution > > - does it introduce external dependencies? If yes, this must be *very* > carful considered. > > - is the design well-thought and mature > > - does it make sense tying the release cycle of python the cycle of the > new lib > > > And insulting the people who do work on python and do a marvellous job > doing so is certainly *not* helping. >
And of course if ext was a good idea, we'd use Weave from scipy instead, which exists and works. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list