Am 22.03.2013 10:48, schrieb Antoine Pitrou: > Le Thu, 21 Mar 2013 21:38:41 +0100, > Georg Brandl <g.bra...@gmx.net> a écrit : > >> Am 21.03.2013 19:13, schrieb Antoine Pitrou: >> > On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 19:57:54 -0700 >> > Raymond Hettinger <raymond.hettin...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Mar 20, 2013, at 12:38 PM, Barry Warsaw <ba...@python.org> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> > Right. Ultimately, I think IDLE should be a separate project >> >> > entirely, but I guess there's push back against that too. >> >> >> >> The most important feature of IDLE is that it ships with the >> >> standard library. Everyone who clicks on the Windows MSI on the >> >> python.org webpage automatically has IDLE. That is why I >> >> frequently teach Python with IDLE. >> >> >> >> If this thread results in IDLE being ripped out of the standard >> >> distribution, then I would likely never use it again. >> > >> > Which says a lot about its usefulness, if the only reason you use >> > it is that it's bundled with the standard distribution. >> >> Just like a lot of the stdlib, it *gets* a lot of usefulness from >> being a battery. But just because there are better/more >> comprehensive/prettier replacements out there is not reason enough to >> remove standard libraries. > > That's a good point. I guess it's difficult for me to think of IDLE as > an actual library.
You're right, "library" is not a good term, but "battery" certainly is. Georg _______________________________________________ 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
