PEP scepticism

[Tim Peters]

[Carlos Ribeiro]
> ...
> So I believe that PythonLabs should at least consider doing three
> things:

A problem is that nobody at PythonLabs has any spare cycles.  People can
suggest any number of things we should do for them, but we're already
overloaded -- it simply won't happen.

> - Define clearly what goes and what does not go into the standard
> library.

This is the province of PEP 2:

    http://python.sourceforge.net/peps/pep-0002.html

While what's there is fine so far as it goes, it would help if someone added
a second sentence <wink>.

> - Help track the module development process.
> ...
> - Compile the standard modules for all supported platforms.

Good goal, but no way to get there from here:  PythonLabs has access to only
a tiny percentage of all the platforms Python runs on.  This *has* to come
from the community.  There are a few people who contribute outstanding work
here (like Mark Favas for various 64-bit boxes), but to judge from the
initial crush of platform-specific bugs whenever we release an alpha
version, far too few people on "minority" platforms try to build from the
CVS tree.  And this despite that compiling Python is more rewarding than
your work and more fun than sex <wink>.

If anyone out there is a knowledgeable fan of some non-Linux non-Windows
platform, they could help a lot just by scouring SourceForge for
platform-specific bug reports and lending a hand.  Like, does *anyone* know
how to make threads work on HP-UX?  There are always half a dozen bugs open
on that.

> ...
> One advantage of having such a well defined process to elect the
> standard  modules is that it will encourage people to improve the
> standard modules, instead of re-inventing the wheel.

PEP 2 is indeed important.