the Gravity of Python 2

[Tim Golden]

On 09/01/2014 16:30, Mark Lawrence wrote:
> On 09/01/2014 16:21, Roy Smith wrote:
>>
>> No, it would be solved by a built-in method.  Recipes are a cop-out. 
>> If something is complicated enough to require a recipe, and used
>> frequently enough to be worth writing that recipe up and documenting
>> it, you might as well have gone the one additional step and made it a
>> method.
>>
> 
> So all of the itertools recipes should be part of the Python module and
> not in more-itertools on pypi?

To be fair, Mark, it's a matter of taste. Raymond [the author/maintainer
of itertools] prefers not to multiply the API; other developers might
legitimately make other calls. Sometimes the cut-off is more obvious;
say, when the effort to make a recipe general purpose creates an
over-engineered API. Other times it's just preference.

Does that mean that every recipe ever conceived should be stuffed into
the class or module it uses? No; but it doesn't rule out adding things
which are genuinely useful.

I think the new statistics module has hit a nice balance on its initial
release: it's a stripped down aesthetic without precluding later additions.

TJG