Where/how to propose an addition to a standard module?

[Joe Strout]

I would like to propose a new method for the string.Template class.
What's the proper procedure for doing this? I've joined the python-
ideas list, but that seems to be only for proposed language changes,
and my idea doesn't require any change to the language at all.

From <http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0001/>, it sounds like the
PEP process is appropriate here, though other PEPs (like <http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3001/

make it sound as though these are meant for proposals for "Python

3000", which is not necessarily my intent.

Here's a brief sketch of my proposal, in case it helps:

Add a "match" function to string.Template, which takes a text string
as a parameter. If this text string can be matched to the template,
by substituting some portion of the given string for each field of the
template, then .match returns a dictionary, where each key is a field
name and the value is the corresponding text from the input. If the
text string cannot be matched to the template, then .match returns None.

I understand that if I'm to write a PEP, I'll need to flesh this out
considerably as per PEP 0001. But that document also suggests first
discussing it here. I'm still a newbie (or actually, oldbie-turned-
nonbie-turned-newbie-again), so I could use some advice. What's the
next step in advocating for this idea?

Thanks,
- Joe

[Aaron \Castironpi\ Brady]

On Oct 10, 2:10*pm, Joe Strout <[e-mail]:

I would like to propose a new method for the string.Template class. *
What's the proper procedure for doing this? *I've joined the python-
ideas list, but that seems to be only for proposed language changes, *
and my idea doesn't require any change to the language at all.

*From <http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0001/>, it sounds like the *
PEP process is appropriate here, though other PEPs (like <http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3001/
*make it sound as though these are meant for proposals for "Python *
3000", which is not necessarily my intent.

Here's a brief sketch of my proposal, in case it helps:

Add a "match" function to string.Template, which takes a text string *
as a parameter. *If this text string can be matched to the template, *
by substituting some portion of the given string for each field of the *
template, then .match returns a dictionary, where each key is a field *
name and the value is the corresponding text from the input. *If the *
text string cannot be matched to the template, then .match returns None.

I understand that if I'm to write a PEP, I'll need to flesh this out *
considerably as per PEP 0001. *But that document also suggests first *
discussing it here. *I'm still a newbie (or actually, oldbie-turned-
nonbie-turned-newbie-again), so I could use some advice. *What's the *
next step in advocating for this idea?

Thanks,
- Joe

I think it's something the 're' module already does. Correct me if
I'm wrong.

[pruebauno]

On Oct 10, 3:10 pm, Joe Strout <[e-mail]:

I would like to propose a new method for the string.Template class.
What's the proper procedure for doing this? I've joined the python-
ideas list, but that seems to be only for proposed language changes,
and my idea doesn't require any change to the language at all.

From <http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0001/>, it sounds like the
PEP process is appropriate here, though other PEPs (like <http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3001/

make it sound as though these are meant for proposals for "Python

3000", which is not necessarily my intent.

Here's a brief sketch of my proposal, in case it helps:

Add a "match" function to string.Template, which takes a text string
as a parameter. If this text string can be matched to the template,
by substituting some portion of the given string for each field of the
template, then .match returns a dictionary, where each key is a field
name and the value is the corresponding text from the input. If the
text string cannot be matched to the template, then .match returns None.

I understand that if I'm to write a PEP, I'll need to flesh this out
considerably as per PEP 0001. But that document also suggests first
discussing it here. I'm still a newbie (or actually, oldbie-turned-
nonbie-turned-newbie-again), so I could use some advice. What's the
next step in advocating for this idea?

Thanks,
- Joe

Whenever I needed such functionality I used the re module. The benefit
is that it uses unix style regular expression syntax and an egrep/awk/
perl/ruby user can understand it. You should show a few examples where
your proposal looks better than just using RE.