On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 05:22:45AM +0200, Eli Bendersky wrote: > On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 05:07, R. David Murray <rdmur...@bitdance.com> wrote: > > I don't like any of the suggested wordings. ?I have no problem with > > us recommending other modules, but most of the Python libraries are > > perfectly functional (not "leaky" or some other pejorative), they just > > aren't as capable as the wiz-bang new stuff that's available on PyPI. > > > > +1 to David's comment, and -0 on the proposal as a whole. > > The suggested wordings are simply offensive to those modules & their > maintainers specifically, and to Python generally. > > Personally, I think an intelligent user should realize that a > language's standard library won't provide all the latest and shiniest > gadgets. Rather, it will focus on providing stable tools that have > withstood the test of time and can serve as a basis for building more > advanced tools. That intelligent user should also be aware of PyPI > (and the main Python page makes it prominent enough), so I see no > reason explicitly pointing to it in the documentation of several > modules.
I see the point, but as a reasonably knowledgeable Python programmer (intelligent? who knows...) I regularly discover nifty new modules that "replace" stdlib modules. It'd be nice to have pointers in the docs, although that runs the risk of having the pointers grow stale, too. --titus -- C. Titus Brown, c...@msu.edu _______________________________________________ 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
