[Python-Dev] Docs of weak stdlib modules should encourage exploration of 3rd-party alternatives

[Glenn Linderman]

On 3/12/2012 8:48 PM, C. Titus Brown wrote:
> I feel like there's a middle ground where stable, long-term go-to modules could
> be mentioned, though.  I don't spend a lot of time browsing PyPI, but I suspect
> almost everyone spends a certain amount of time in the Python docs (which is a
> testimony to their quality IMO).  So I'm in favor of conservative link-outs
> but without any deprecating language.

Any outward links will be somewhat intrusive, and their existence will 
admit that the stdlib module is limited in some fashion, such that 
someone invested time and effort to create an alternative.

On the other hand, if there were a standard place for external links to 
alternatives, say, perhaps, at the bottom of the left-hand table of 
contents for the module, and if it were Wiki-like (anyone could add an 
alternative) then the core developers wouldn't need to monitor and 
approve the alternatives. The alternatives would not be listed in the 
TOC, only the link, if alternatives were submitted.  At the link target 
Wiki, there could be various alternatives, pro/con comments, user votes, 
whatever seems useful.

If there is truly a desire by core developers to recommend specific 
alternative modules, then wording like the following seems neutral to me:

Alternatives to this module exist at [list of links], which may be 
updated more regularly than the stdlib.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20120312/45424919/attachment.html>