On 3/23/17 3:14 PM, Robert Collins wrote: > On 24 March 2017 at 04:59, INADA Naoki <songofaca...@gmail.com> wrote: >> And this issue is relating to it too: http://bugs.python.org/issue29716 >> >> In short, "namespace package" is for make it possible to `pip install >> foo_bar foo_baz`, >> when foo_bar provides `foo.bar` and foo_baz provides `foo.baz` >> package. (foo is namespace package). >> >> If unittests searches normal directly, it may walk deep into very >> large tree containing >> millions of directories. I don't like it. > That is a risk, OTOH I think the failure to do what folk expect is a > bigger risk.
The issue here is, what do folks expect? PEP 420 is pretty clear on its purpose. The first sentence of the abstract: > Namespace packages are a mechanism for splitting a single Python package across multiple directories on disk. And the first sentence of the specification: > Regular packages will continue to have an __init__.py and will reside in a single directory. PEP 420 is not meant to make all __init__.py files optional. It has a specific purpose. These proposed changes are not in support of that purpose. We should not bend over backwards to support getting rid of __init__.py files just because people don't like empty __init__.py files. That's not what PEP 420 is for. --Ned.
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
