The big shots

[Chris Mellon]

On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 5:31 PM, Diez B. Roggisch <deets at nospam.web.de> wrote:
> >
>  > May I insist?  By the criteria you've mentioned so far, nothing rules
>  > out 'ext'.  If it's still a bad idea, there's a reason.  What is it?
>
>  You imply that just because something is somehow working and even useful
>  for a *some* people (some being maybe only you) that it would be worth
>  including in the python standard lib. It is not.
>
>  There are no really formal rules for inclusion, but these are certainly
>  rules of thumb that are being considered:
>
>   - is it useful for *a lot of people*
>
>   - will it be mantained and maintainable for "ever" once it is part of
>     the standard distribution
>
>   - does it introduce external dependencies? If yes, this must be *very*
>     carful considered.
>
>   - is the design well-thought and mature
>
>   - does it make sense tying the release cycle of python the cycle of the
>     new lib
>
>
>  And insulting the people who do work on python and do a marvellous job
>  doing so is certainly *not* helping.
>


And of course if ext was a good idea, we'd use Weave from scipy
instead, which exists and works.