> It seems that there is not much interest in the topic... > > I'll be offline for the next two weeks -- maybe someone could > pick the thread up and toss it around a bit while I'm away. OK - here are my 2c on it: Unless I am mistaken, this problem could be solved with 2 steps: * Code moves to Python packages. * The standard Python library move to a package. If all non-trivial Python program used packages, and some agreement on a standard namespace could be met, I think it would be addressed. There was a thread on the newsgroup about the potential naming of the standard library. You did state as much in your proposal - indeed, you state "to ease the transition". Personally, I dont think it is worth it, mainly because we end up with a half-baked scheme purely for the transition, but one that can never be removed. To me, the question is one of: * Why arent Zope/PIL capable of being used as packages. * If they are (as I understand to be the case) why do people choose not to use them as such, or why do the authors not recommend this? * Is there a deficiency in the package scheme that makes it hard to use? Eg, should "__" that ni used for the parent package be reinstated? Mark.
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4