Ronald Oussoren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 30-mei-2006, at 19:49, Josiah Carlson wrote: > > Though I'm probably a bit strange in that I almost want a top level > > "py" > > package, and a separating of site-packages from the sys.path and > > into a > > top level package named "site". > > > > The former would make clear that you expect the module to be in the > > standard library, and the latter would make clear that you want a > > site-packages-specific module/package. > > I can understand the wish for a toplevel package that contains the > stdlib, although I don't think I agree with that. Stuffing site- > packages in another toplevel package seems wrong to me. If I > understand you correctly I'd have to do 'import site.wx' to import > wxPython and that doesn't feel right.
I believe people would tend to use 'from site import wx', because using 'wx.Frame' is much preferrable to 'site.wx.Frame'. Do you disagree with the desire to make Python all in 'py' in addition to site-packages as 'site'? Note that by having top level 'py' and 'site' packages, the sys.modules naming of subpackages and modules necessarily get a 'py.' or 'site.' prefix, which I believe would reduce the amount of name intersections with user code. There was also a proposal that I was supposed to work on getting formalized somewhat over a year ago about getting __main__ relative imports to have __main__.XXX names, which would further reduce (if not remove entirely) name collisions in sys.modules, but I got caught up in my attempt at a relative import hook. - Josiah _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list Python-3000@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
