On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 10:57 AM, Paul Moore <p.f.mo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> For complex stuff, subpackages
> ("import X.Y") might be needed, but that's rare (and even then, key
> names should be exposed directly from X).
>
> Paul.
>
> PS Having said all this, I don't maintain any code on PyPI - I'm a
> user not a producer. That may affect my perspective...
>
That, and if you don't work with web stuff or networking stuff. Things
having lots of subpackages are quite the rule there.
Also, functional naming for top-level modules is actually an anti-pattern:
an invitation to naming conflicts, especially with future stdlib contents.
Suppose two people want to write an "email" package? Unless you jam the
ownership into the name (e.g. joes_email and bobs_email), what are you
supposed to do?
This is why we have popular packages with names like nose and celery and
django and pyramid and lamson: because unique memorable names >
functionally descriptive names.
_______________________________________________
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
