Martin v. Löwis wrote: >> Given the fact that most packages that depend on ET already use more than one >> try-except import for these modules anyway (and likely a separate module that >> cares for the right import), I don't see the situation becoming any worse by >> making them PEP8 compliant. > > So what specific changes would you have in mind? How would existing code > have to be changed to accommodate these changes?
I was thinking of the existing import cascade below: http://code.activestate.com/recipes/475126/ There's hardly a way to make *that* worse. >From looking at the archives, it seems that the original idea to call the package "xml.etree" came from Fredrik himself - a bad choice, even at the time, but that's how it is now. So the obvious suggestion is that in Py3, the modules should be called "xml.etree.elementtree", "xml.etree.celementtree", etc., and code that imports them would add yet another try-import-except. I think the rest of the modules (function names, class names, etc.) is pretty much PEP8 compliant already, given the freedom that it currently permits. The only thing that really strikes currently is the identical naming of modules and classes. Stefan _______________________________________________ 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
