Fernando Perez wrote: > Skip Montanaro wrote: > >> I wouldn't mind a stdlib that defined a set of top-level packages (some of >> which might be wholly unpopulated by modules in the standard distribution) >> It might, for example, define a gui package and gui.Tkinter and gui._tkinter >> modules, leaving the remainder of gui namespace available for 3rd party >> modules. Such a scheme would probably work best if there was some fairly >> lightweight registration/approval process in the community to avoid needless >> collisions. For example, it might be a bit confusing if two organizations >> began installing their packages in a subpackage named gui.widgets. An >> unsuspecting person downloading an application that used one version of >> gui.widgets into environment with the conflicting gui.widgets would run into >> trouble. > > I've wondered if it wouldn't be better if the std lib were all stuffed into > its > own namespace: > > from std import urllib > > If a more structured approach is desired, it could be > > from std.www import urllib
One may want to look at the "py.std" approach of "the py lib", found at http://codespeak.net/py/current/doc/misc.html#the-py-std-hook Reinhold -- Mail address is perfectly valid! _______________________________________________ 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
