At 02:30 PM 4/7/2009 +0200, M.-A. Lemburg wrote: > >> Wouldn't it be better to stick with a simpler approach and look for > >> "__pkg__.py" files to detect namespace packages using that O(1) check ? > > > > Again - this wouldn't be O(1). More importantly, it breaks system > > packages, which now again have to deal with the conflicting file names > > if they want to install all portions into a single location. > >True, but since that means changing the package infrastructure, I think >it's fair to ask distributors who want to use that approach to also take >care of looking into the __pkg__.py files and merging them if >necessary. > >Most of the time the __pkg__.py files will be empty, so that's not >really much to ask for. This means your proposal actually doesn't add any benefit over the status quo, where you can have an __init__.py that does nothing but declare the package a namespace. We already have that now, and it doesn't need a new filename. Why would we expect OS vendors to start supporting it, just because we name it __pkg__.py instead of __init__.py?
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