On Jul 25, 2011, at 12:06 PM, Matthew Knepley wrote: > On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 4:56 PM, Sean Farley <sean at mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > I disagree with this completely. There's a tendency to think of everything > python as a package -- this is NOT a package. It has no __init__.py, it has > no __all__, it has no submodules, and it doesn't need any of that. It simply > does a one-off task -- it's bits of code to be used in a script. Putting > this sort of code in site-packages is what makes site-packages the nightmare > of ignored dependencies and overlapping versions it is today. > > If you want to make it into a package, you're welcome to do so. With that > includes registration with the cheeseshop to make sure the namespace is > unique, placing the single file within a folder that includes an __init__ > (and then likely just gets imported within that __init__), writing a > setup.py, etc etc. It's just complete overkill. > > Then why put it in bin/python at all? Just drop the .py extension and put it > in bin (with a 'correct' [whatever that may be] python hashbang)?
Because directories are a useful way to organize categories of software (for example the bin/matlab directory has all the Matlab scripts). Why not just not use subdirectories in PETSc and just stick all PETSc files directly into the PETSc root directory? Barry > > I am for this, although I do not give a crap what the extension is. > > Matt > > Sean > > > > -- > What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their experiments > is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their experiments > lead. > -- Norbert Wiener
