Home Original page

[Python-Dev] IDLE in the stdlib

Eli Bendersky eliben at gmail.com
Wed Mar 20 20:46:25 CET 2013 
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Benjamin Peterson <benjamin at python.org>wrote:

> 2013/3/20 Barry Warsaw <barry at python.org>:
> > On Mar 20, 2013, at 11:22 AM, Eli Bendersky wrote:
> >
> >>IDLE would be a great first foray into this "separate project" world,
> >>because it is many ways a separate project.
> >
> > I really think that's true.  A separate project, occasionally sync'd
> back into
> > the stdlib by a core dev seems like the right way to manage IDLE.
>
> I would advise against this. Basically, every "externally-maintained"
> package with have causes pain. For example, the stdlib now has some
> long-diverged fork of simplejson. With xml.etree, it was not clear for
> years whether core developers could touch it even though the external
> project had died. Either the stdlib and IDLE should go separate ways
> or development has to happen in the stdlib with CPython release
> schedule and policies.
>

There are other dependencies like libffi, but I really think IDLE is
different. xml.etree and libffi are building blocks upon which a lot of
users' code depends. So we have to keep maintaining them (unless there's
some sort of agreed deprecation process). IDLE is really a stand-alone
project built on Python. It's unique in this respect.
Eli
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20130320/9638c570/attachment.html>
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list