Hello, On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 11:08:45 +0200 Benoît Bryon <ben...@marmelune.net> wrote: > Hi, > > Here is an informational PEP proposal: > http://hg.python.org/peps/file/52767ab7e140/pep-0423.txt > > Could you review it for style, consistency and content?
There is one Zen principle this PEP is missing: Flat is better than nested. This PEP seems to promote the practice of having a top-level namespace denote ownership. I think it should do the reverse: promote meaningful top-level packages (e.g. "sphinx") as standard practice, and allow an exception for when a piece of software is part of a larger organizational body. (i.e., "Community-owned projects can avoid namespace packages" should be the first item in the PEP and renamed so that it appears common rule) I don't think we want a Java-like landscape where everyone operates behind their closed fences à la org.myorganization.somecommunity and where package names shout "ownership" rather than "functionality". (*) Also, do note that "packaging" is ambiguous in Python-land. (*) (for the record, companies internally can do what they want; this PEP AFAICT addresses the case of publicly released packages) Regards Antoine. _______________________________________________ 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
