Naming conventions

[Uzair]

Why aren't the names of the modules in the standard library fixed so
that they follow some actual naming convention? That is probably the
biggest deterrent for new users -- having to dig through several
sources to find the module they're interested in. And, as with urllib
and urllib2, it isn't even clear at first glance which is more useful
and when it should be used...

Just curious...I've read a lot about the Python community's collective
determination to maintain the purity of the language and ease-of-use,
and their willingness to fix 'broken' elements rather than gloss over
them in the name of backward compatibility, as Sun often does with
Java :)

Best,

Uzair

[Paul Rubin]

uz********@yahoo.com (Uzair) writes:

Why aren't the names of the modules in the standard library fixed so
that they follow some actual naming convention? That is probably the
biggest deterrent for new users -- having to dig through several
sources to find the module they're interested in. And, as with urllib
and urllib2, it isn't even clear at first glance which is more useful
and when it should be used...

The usual convention with things like urllib/urllib2 is that someone
writes urllib, people use it and gain experience with it, and learn
that it would benefit from enhancements that would break existing code
that uses it. So a new module gets implemented that has the
enhancements but is incompatible with the old module. That way, new
code can use the new module but old code can keep using the old
module.