Modules for inclusion in standard library?

[Colin J. Williams]

Gregory Piñero wrote:
> While that policy does make sense, I think a database program falls
> somewhere in between an OS and an everyday third party program.  For
> web developers, the database might as well be the OS.  I use the
> database to store everything in my web app.  That way I can just worry
> about 1 place to access information and not have to fool with files
> and other OS issues.
> 
> So I humbly suggest the policy should be :
> 
> Python will not include interface code for third party programs which
> are not part of an operating system or database system.
> 
> ...
Isn't this where the discussion should start?  There should be some 
general policy guiding the types of modules which should be in the 
standard library.  Clearly, size is a factor as the msi version of 
Python 2.4 is now 10 MB.

if there were some sort of package manager which took account of 
dependencies would that reduce the need to expand the standard library?

Colin W.
> But I have no experience in designing world class programming
> langauges so forgive me if I am too bold.
> 
> -Greg
> 
> 
> On 6/29/05, Rocco Moretti <roccomoretti at hotpop.com> wrote:
> 
>>Paul Rubin wrote:
>>
>>>Gregory Piñero <gregpinero at gmail.com > writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I'd like to see some database API's to the most common databases
>>>>included.
>>>
>>>Yes, certainly, this is a serious deficiency with Python.
>>
>>Except that (please correct me if I'm wrong) there is somewhat of a
>>policy for not including interface code for third party programs which
>>are not part of the operating system. (I.e. the modules in the standard
>>libary should all be usable for anyone with a default OS + Python install..)
>>
>>A notable exception is the dbm modules, but I seem to recall hearing
>>that the official position is that it was a mistake. (Now only kept for
>>backward compatability.)
>>--
>>http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list 
>>