On 4/27/06, Thomas Wouters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Damn, you're right, I confused subpackage with submodule :P
In that case, can I counter-propose to stop requiring the __init__.py file in [foo/__init__.py, foo/bar.py] ? ;-)
The proposal would mean that a directory 'foo' with a single file bar.py would make the module 'foo.bar' available if the parent directory of 'foo' is in sys.path.
/me faces the pitchforks.
On 4/27/06, Gustavo Carneiro < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Besides, Guido's original proposal is not a fix for your problem, either; he only proposes to change the requirement for *sub*packages.
It *is* a solution for my problem. I don't need the __init__.py file for anything, since I don't need anything defined in the the 'foo' namespace, only the subpackages foo.bar and foo.zbr .
... No. Guido's original proposal is not a fix for your problem, because *it doesn't affect the 'foo' namespace*. Guido's original proposal still requires foo/__init__.py for your namespace to work, it just makes foo/bar/__init__.py and foo/zbr/__init__.py optional.
Damn, you're right, I confused subpackage with submodule :P
In that case, can I counter-propose to stop requiring the __init__.py file in [foo/__init__.py, foo/bar.py] ? ;-)
The proposal would mean that a directory 'foo' with a single file bar.py would make the module 'foo.bar' available if the parent directory of 'foo' is in sys.path.
/me faces the pitchforks.
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
