On 07/01/2008, Raymond Hettinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It is my hope that there will be a great deal of restraint in the effort to > group modules into > packages in Py3.0.
+1 > The best existing indicator we have is the organization of the docs for the > standard library. > I, for one, have a hell of a difficult time finding modules via the > "organized" table of > contents in the Library Reference. Instead, I always go the the Global Module > Index > where the somewhat flat namespace makes it easy to go directly to the module > of > interest. I'm curious whether the other developers have had the same > experience -- if so, > then it is a bad omen for over-organizing the standard library. Yes, I have the same problem. I had not considered this, but I agree that it's the best indication available of how a hierarchical organisation might end up, and what issues there might be. >From the Zen of Python: "Flat is better than nested". > There are handful of groupings that are obvious (i.e. html and socket modules > going into > an internet package). One man's obvious is another man's confusing. I'd stick to Guido's principle, that packages should only be used where they simplify sub-names. And even there, use restraint. I know I was earlier tending more towards the side of having more packages. I've been convinced otherwise. Paul. _______________________________________________ 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
