git.net

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Python-Dev] Inclusion of lz4 bindings in stdlib?


On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 at 17:52, Nathaniel Smith <njs at pobox.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018, 08:34 Antoine Pitrou <antoine at python.org wrote:
>>
>>
>> Le 29/11/2018 ? 17:25, Steve Dower a ?crit :
>> >
>> > My experience is that the first group would benefit from a larger
>> > _standard distribution_, which is not necessarily the same thing as a
>> > larger stdlib.
>> >
>> > I'm firmly on the "smaller core, larger distribution" side of things,
>> > where we as the core team take responsibility for the bare minimum
>> > needed to be an effective language and split more functionality out to
>> > individual libraries.
>>
>> We may ask ourselves if there is really a large difference between a
>> "standard distribution" and a "standard library".  The primary
>> difference seems to be that the distribution is modular, while the
>> stdlib is not.
>
>
> Some differences that come to mind:

Ha. That arrived after I'd sent my other email. I'm not going to
discuss these points case by case, except to say that there are some
definite aspects of your interpretation of a "standard distribution"
that are in conflict with what would work best for my use case.[1]

Regardless of the details that we discuss here, it seems self-evident
to me that any proposal to move away from the current "core+stdlib"
distribution would be a significant change and would absolutely
require a PEP, which would have to cover all of these trade-offs in
detail. But until there is such a PEP, that clearly explains the
precise variant of "standard distribution" model that is being
proposed, I don't see much point in getting into details. There's
simply too much likelihood of people talking past each other because
of differing assumptions.

Paul

[1] Which, to reiterate, remains just one particular environment, plus
a lot of extrapolation that there are "many other enterprise
environments like mine"[2]
[2] Oh, I really hope not - pity the poor souls who would work there :-)