At 02:30 PM 4/7/2009 +0200, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
>> Wouldn't it be better to stick with a simpler approach and look for
>> "__pkg__.py" files to detect namespace packages using that O(1) check ?
>
> Again - this wouldn't be O(1). More importantly, it breaks system
> packages, which now again have to deal with the conflicting file names
> if they want to install all portions into a single location.
True, but since that means changing the package infrastructure, I think
it's fair to ask distributors who want to use that approach to also take
care of looking into the __pkg__.py files and merging them if
necessary.
Most of the time the __pkg__.py files will be empty, so that's not
really much to ask for.
This means your proposal actually doesn't add any benefit over the
status quo, where you can have an __init__.py that does nothing but
declare the package a namespace. We already have that now, and it
doesn't need a new filename. Why would we expect OS vendors to start
supporting it, just because we name it __pkg__.py instead of __init__.py?
_______________________________________________
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
