Author belopolsky
Recipients belopolsky
Date 2010-10-26.15:48:52
SpamBayes Score 2.48546e-09
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <>
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 11:18 AM, Guido van Rossum <> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 8:13 AM, Alexander Belopolsky
> <> wrote:
>> The one demo that I want to find a better place for is Demo/turtle.
> Sure, go for it. It is a special case because the turtle module is
> also in the stdlib and these are intended for a particular novice
> audience. Anything we can do to make things easier for those people to
> get start with is probably worth it. Ideally they could just double
> click some file and the demo would fire up, with a command-line
> alternative (for the geeks among them) e.g. "python -m turtledemo" .
> --
> --Guido van Rossum (
-- "Move Demo scripts under Lib"

Before I prepare a patch, I would like to get an agreement on the location of the demo package.  In the order of my preference:

1. turtle.demo Pro: obvious relationship to turtle.  Cons: require converting to a package.

2. turtledemo  Pro: BDFL's suggestion; "Flat is better than nested".  Cons: relationship to turtle module is less obvious than in #1; stdlib namespace pollution. (Turtle invasion! :-)

3. demo.turtle - probably not a good idea if not as a part of a general Demo reorganization.

Note that while I listed conversion of to a package as a cons, it may not be a bad idea on its own.  For example, toolkit abstraction naturally belongs to submodules and procedural interface belongs to package level while OOP classes may be separated into submodules.  While I am not proposing any such changes as a part of this ticket, it may not be a bad idea to take the first step and rename to turtle/
Date User Action Args
2010-10-26 15:48:56belopolskysetrecipients: + belopolsky
2010-10-26 15:48:56belopolskysetmessageid: <>
2010-10-26 15:48:54belopolskylinkissue10199 messages
2010-10-26 15:48:52belopolskycreate