Philip Semanchuk wrote:
Hi all,
Our project uses some libraries that were written by 3rd parties (i.e.
not us). These libraries fit into a single Python file and live in our
source tree alongside other modules we've written. When our app is
distributed, they'll be included in the
Philip Semanchuk phi...@semanchuk.com writes:
Our project uses some libraries that were written by 3rd parties (i.e.
not us). These libraries fit into a single Python file and live in our
source tree alongside other modules we've written.
Why in the same source tree? They are maintained
On Fri, 2009-10-02 at 20:22 -0400, Simon Forman wrote:
2.5 +1
I'd like to suggest 2.46 instead.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Oct 2, 9:50 pm, Philip Semanchuk phi...@semanchuk.com wrote:
Hi all,
PEP 8 http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0008/ says the following:
Imports should be grouped in the following order:
1. standard library imports
2. related third party imports
3. local
Hi all,
Our project uses some libraries that were written by 3rd parties (i.e.
not us). These libraries fit into a single Python file and live in our
source tree alongside other modules we've written. When our app is
distributed, they'll be included in the installation. In other words,
Philip Semanchuk phi...@semanchuk.com wrote:
In your Pythonic opinion, should 3rd-party modules that live alongside
homegrown code be listed in import category 2 or 3?
PEP 8 also starts by saying This document gives coding conventions for the
Python code comprising the standard library in
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 3:50 PM, Philip Semanchuk phi...@semanchuk.com wrote:
Hi all,
Our project uses some libraries that were written by 3rd parties (i.e. not
us). These libraries fit into a single Python file and live in our source
tree alongside other modules we've written. When our app is
