On Monday, November 15, 2010 10:17:01 am Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Nov 15, 2010, at 12:06 PM, Stefano Rivera wrote: > >Why not just use python-support/dh_python2's private-module mode? This > >is what most applications should be using, anyway, rather than polluting > >the public Python module namespace. > > I hesitate to mention this here because I agree that in this context, > application-private modules makes good sense. > > In *general* though, I'm not a big fan of it because properly organized and > named packages should not be "polluting" but enhancing the public > namespace. A good way to think about it is that an "application" (i.e. the > command you execute) is just the tip of the iceberg on top of a rich > library that could be useful to others. I'm thinking about examples like > 'bzr' and 'bzrlib' which were explicitly designed to work that way, to > great benefit.
Unless there is some commitment to API stability, this is actively harmful. If you are writing functions to be consumed generally, and not just within your program/module/whatever, then you have to take on some additional responsiblities. If you don't, then whoever tries to take advantage of your code is in for a world of hurt. As you say, when it's design for it, this is great, but not for general application code. Scott K -- ubuntu-devel mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
