Nick Coghlan added the comment: On the "self-contained" packages point, I was going to suggest that name, but the ability to set __path__ from __init__.py messes with it. "Regular packages" isn't great, but I'm willing to tolerate it (mainly because it was the terminology used in the approved PEP 420). The reason I still prefer "initialized" package though, is because the real difference between the two is the presence or absence of __init__.py. That means arbitrary code execution can occur as a side effect of import for initialized packages, in contrast to namespace packages which are comparatively "pure" (that is, no user provided code is executed as a side effect of importing them).
+1 for renaming the current "hooks" section to "extensions" (with only the callables on path_hooks being referred to as hooks). On the topic of "import handlers" vs "meta path finders", the reason I'm happy with keeping the common suffix for "meta path finders" and "path entry finders" is that while there are substantial differences in *how* they do what they do, they are fundamentally the same in terms of *what* they do: given a module name, find a loader for it (or indicate that you can't find one). Meta path finders search more broadly than path entry finders do, but they're still doing much the same job. I've come to the conclusion that PEP 302 actually did a reasonable job with the finder vs loader vs importer classification scheme, and it's not worth trying to change that terminology too much after it's already been in the wild for 10+ years. Clarify and refine by introducing additional distinctions, yes, but change, no. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue15502> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
