On 5/31/06, Tim Hochberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However, wx currently, and presumably for the forseeable future, lives
> in site packages, so we'd actually have something like:
>
> from site.gui import wx
> from site.gui import pygui
> from py.gui import tkinter
> That seems
Ronald Oussoren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > There was also a proposal that I was supposed to work on getting
> > formalized somewhat over a year ago about getting __main__ relative
> > imports to have __main__.XXX names, which would further reduce (if not
> > remove entirely) name collisions in
On 31-mei-2006, at 9:00, Josiah Carlson wrote:
>
> Ronald Oussoren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 30-mei-2006, at 19:49, Josiah Carlson wrote:
>>> Though I'm probably a bit strange in that I almost want a top level
>>> "py"
>>> package, and a separating of site-packages from the sys.path
The more examples I see of the 'py' and 'site' top level namespaces, the
less I like them. Let's dispose of 'site' first; it's been common to
show examples like:
from gui import wx
However, wx currently, and presumably for the forseeable future, lives
in site packages, so we'd actually h
Fred L. Drake, Jr. wrote:
> On Wednesday 31 May 2006 01:49, Ronald Oussoren wrote:
> > I can understand the wish for a toplevel package that contains the
> > stdlib, although I don't think I agree with that.
>
> I understand it, and mostly wish for it at this point, though I think the
> name re
Greg Ewing wrote:
> Fred L. Drake, Jr. wrote:
>
>> > Stuffing site-
>> > packages in another toplevel package seems wrong to me. If I
>> > understand you correctly I'd have to do 'import site.wx' to import
>> > wxPython and that doesn't feel right.
>>
>>Agreed. That would be nothing but pain.
>
Fred L. Drake, Jr. wrote:
> > Stuffing site-
> > packages in another toplevel package seems wrong to me. If I
> > understand you correctly I'd have to do 'import site.wx' to import
> > wxPython and that doesn't feel right.
>
> Agreed. That would be nothing but pain.
Also it would seem to me
Ronald Oussoren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On 30-mei-2006, at 19:49, Josiah Carlson wrote:
> > Though I'm probably a bit strange in that I almost want a top level
> > "py"
> > package, and a separating of site-packages from the sys.path and
> > into a
> > top level package named "site"
On Wednesday 31 May 2006 01:49, Ronald Oussoren wrote:
> I can understand the wish for a toplevel package that contains the
> stdlib, although I don't think I agree with that.
I understand it, and mostly wish for it at this point, though I think the name
really has to be something short to work
On 30-mei-2006, at 19:49, Josiah Carlson wrote:
>
> "Steven Bethard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> On 5/30/06, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> So, first step in my mind is settling if we want to add one more
>>> depth to
>>> the stdlib, and if so, how we want to group (not specif
[Steven Bethard]
> I think that having a package level that exactly matches the divisions
> in the Library Reference (http://docs.python.org/lib/lib.html) would
> be great.
[Jim Jewett]
> Are there any *dis*agreements with this?
[Terry Reedy]
> It is certainly a good starting point. However, it
"Jim Jewett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> "Steven Bethard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > I think that having a package level that exactly matches the divisions
>> > in the Library Reference (http://docs.python.org/lib/lib.html) would
>> > be great.
>
> Are ther
On 5/30/06, Josiah Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Steven Bethard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I think that having a package level that exactly matches the divisions
> > in the Library Reference (http://docs.python.org/lib/lib.html) would
> > be great.
Are there any *dis*agreements with
"Steven Bethard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 5/30/06, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So, first step in my mind is settling if we want to add one more depth to
> > the stdlib, and if so, how we want to group (not specific groupings, just
> > general guidelines).
>
> I think tha
On 5/30/06, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, first step in my mind is settling if we want to add one more depth to
> the stdlib, and if so, how we want to group (not specific groupings, just
> general guidelines).
I think that having a package level that exactly matches the divisions
On 5/29/06, Talin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Guido van Rossum wrote:> I have to ignore this topic. It's too big and contentious to get easy> agreement. (The one thing I *don't* want is move the entire stdlib> hierarchy under 'py' or something like that.) Eric Raymond once made
> detailed proposal,
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> I have to ignore this topic. It's too big and contentious to get easy
> agreement. (The one thing I *don't* want is move the entire stdlib
> hierarchy under 'py' or something like that.) Eric Raymond once made
> detailed proposal, you can probably still find it somewhere.
I have to ignore this topic. It's too big and contentious to get easy
agreement. (The one thing I *don't* want is move the entire stdlib
hierarchy under 'py' or something like that.) Eric Raymond once made
detailed proposal, you can probably still find it somewhere. Good
luck!
--Guido
On 5/22/06,
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 11:54:14PM -0700, Talin wrote:
> net.protocols - http, imap, pop, ftp, etc.
>Example: net.protocols.http
>
> net.formats - mail, mime, binhex, etc.
>Example: net.formats.mime
>
> net.tools - webbrowser, SocketServer, robotparser, etc.
I'd li
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On 5/22/06, Antoine Pitrou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Yet "array" is not named "arraylib", "calendar" is not named
>>"calendarlib", "email" is not named "emaillib"... Shall I continue? ;)
>
>
> Please stop this pointless debate. We all know that the stdlib uses
> ma
On 5/22/06, Antoine Pitrou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yet "array" is not named "arraylib", "calendar" is not named
> "calendarlib", "email" is not named "emaillib"... Shall I continue? ;)
Please stop this pointless debate. We all know that the stdlib uses
many different inconsistent naming conve
Le lundi 22 mai 2006 à 09:46 -0700, Aahz a écrit :
> On Mon, May 22, 2006, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> >
> > For example, one common annoyance IMO is naming: why "urllib" or
> > "httplib"? If I import something, it's obvious it's a lib, so "import
> > http" would seem sufficient. There are also inconsi
On Mon, May 22, 2006, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>
> For example, one common annoyance IMO is naming: why "urllib" or
> "httplib"? If I import something, it's obvious it's a lib, so "import
> http" would seem sufficient. There are also inconsistencies in casing
> ("StringIO, "cPickle", etc.), unnecessar
Le lundi 22 mai 2006 à 09:07 -0700, Brett Cannon a écrit :
> Actually, there aren't any real proposals. =)
>
> I tried bringing up the topic earlier this year shortly after Python
> 3000 discussion took off, and everyone said to hold off for a while on
> that topic.
Perhaps a wiki page somewher
On 5/22/06, Talin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The 3100 PEP has an item which states "Reorganize the standard libraryto not be as shallow". I presume that there are already numerousproposals for a new library organization; Is there a list of links that
someone can post so that I could check them out?
The 3100 PEP has an item which states "Reorganize the standard library
to not be as shallow". I presume that there are already numerous
proposals for a new library organization; Is there a list of links that
someone can post so that I could check them out? Thanks.
-- Talin
_
26 matches
Mail list logo
