On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Paul Moore <p.f.mo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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
There's also the fact that our module namespace is separate from our distribution names namespace... _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
