Rafe wrote:
On Nov 21, 2:36 am, Stef Mientki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm not an expert, I even don't fully understand your problem,
but having struggled with imports in the past,
I've a solution now, which seems to work quit well.
That's not very helpful, is it? Were you planning to keep the solution
secret?
sorry slip of the keyboard
;-)http://mientki.ruhosting.nl/data_www/pylab_works/pw_importing.html
cheers,
Stef
I really don't understand what you are trying to accomplish in your
article.
I strongly disagree with this statement...
"A second demand is that every module should be able to act as a main
file by running it's main section."
...I am finding the best programs have only one entry point or
interface (though some libraries can be useful from outside the
package.)
At first the program already basically consists of 3 different user
interfaces, MatLab-like, LabView-like, Punthoofd-like.
Then it maybe a matter of taste, but for the moment I've planned to have
3 to 5 different IDEs (besides the main programs), but that might change
when they are all finished.
It might be a matter of taste, but I think you'll be better of by an
optimal dedicated IDE, instead of something like Word ( I estimate that
I, as many others, use less than 1% of the items, so you can imagine how
much time we spent on searching the right item)
Being able to run any file in a package seems like it
creates a confusing user/developer experience. What kind of problem
makes this solution applicable?
Testing ...
... by others on other operating systems
... in combination with other Python versions
... in combination with other Library versions (the program interacts
heavily with wxPython, Numpy, Scipy, MatPlotLib, VPython, PyGame, PIL,
Rpyc, winpdb, wmi , LXML., ConfigObj, Nucular, ...)
... automatically testing after modifications
Next, you say...
"...recursive searches for all subdirectories and adds them to the
Python Path."
...it seems like you add every module in your packages directly to the
sys.path. Doesn't this destroy the package name-spaces? For example, I
have a module called 'types' in my package if I add that to the python
path, 'import types' still returns the built-in 'types' module.
Wouldn't this collision be confusing? Regardless, isn't putting the
package in the right place enough? Please explain.
Well I've to confess, I'm not a programmer,
And if I can program, well, I leave that up to you,
and is not very relevant, because I know I can make useful programs ;-)
But I've to admit, I don't understand packages.
I've never experienced any collision,
but then I probably always use much longer, self explaining names than
the build-ins.
This my directory structure ( no module names) , which only contains the
program and its libraries.
A few paths are 1 or 2 levels deeper.
The " lang" contains internationalization strings in normal python
files (another 300 files per language ;-)
Now in my opinion, each module in each path should be able to reach any
other module in this directory structure.
So other / better / simpler solutions are welcome.
cheers,
Stef
main_path
|__ lang
|__ sub_path1
|__lang
|__sub_sub_path_1a
|__lang
|__sub_sub_path_1b
|__lang
|__sub_sub_path_1c
|__lang
|__ sub_path2
|__lang
|__sub_sub_path_2a
|__lang
|__sub_sub_path_2b
|__lang
...
|__ sub_path8
Cheers,
- Rafe
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
