On 1 June 2013 16:57, Jim Fulton <j...@zope.com> wrote: > In the Python community, we've been pretty laid back > about how we name packages. When we were small, this made > sense. It doesn't make sense any more.
I'd like to see some evidence that this is the case. It doesn't seem so to me - most package names are relatively discoverable and/or intuitive, and we currently have basically no namespacing. There's a long way to go before something like your suggestion is needed, in my view. Unfortunately, I think the sanest way of avoiding most package > name issues is to base them on domains, as is done in the Java > world. This goes against the Python philosophy of preferring > flat to nested, but I still think it's better than trying to police > squatters, > or to encouraging races to claim top-level names. > No, no, no... There's the point Donald made that you require people to own a domain (or you create some sort of hack like org.bitbucket.username/com.github.username/...) but it also makes package names unreasonably deep, and requires an explosion of namespace packages at the top level. And it's ugly :-) Perl manages with a relatively flat namespace and relatively informal rules for managing package names (AIUI). I'm sure Python can, too. Paul
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
