Raymond Hettinger <raymond.hettin...@gmail.com> writes: > >> Are we permanently locked into the exact ten filenames that are > >> currently used: utils, suite, loader, case, result, main, signals, > >> etc? […] > Sounds like a decision to split a module into a package is a big > commitment. Each of the individual file names becomes a permanent part > of the API. Even future additional splits are precluded because it > might break someones dotted import (i.e. not a single function can be > moved between those files -- once in unittest.utils, alway in > unittest.utils).
Is this a case where it would be better if the package names had the leading underscore: ‘_utils’, ‘_suite’, etc.? Does the convention on single-leading-underscore identifiers as “don't rely on this name staying the same in future versions” hold for package names? -- \ “Alternative explanations are always welcome in science, if | `\ they are better and explain more. Alternative explanations that | _o__) explain nothing are not welcome.” —Victor J. Stenger, 2001-11-05 | Ben Finney _______________________________________________ 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
