How about "PWAN", the "package without a name"? ;)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: distutils-sig-admin@python.org
> [mailto:distutils-sig-admin@python.org]On Behalf Of Greg Ward
> Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2000 5:34 PM
> To: distutils-sig@python.org; python-dev@python.org
> Subject: [Distutils] Terminology question
>
>
> A question of terminology: frequently in the Distutils docs I need to
> refer to the package-that-is-not-a-package, ie. the "root" or "empty"
> package. I can't decide if I prefer "root package", "empty package" or
> what. ("Empty" just means the *name* is empty, so it's probably not a
> very good thing to say "empty package" -- but "package with no name" or
> "unnamed package" aren't much better.)
>
> Is there some accepted convention that I have missed?
>
> Here's the definition I've just written for the "Distribution Python
> Modules" manual:
>
> \item[root package] the ``package'' that modules not in a package live
> in. The vast majority of the standard library is in the root package,
> as are many small, standalone third-party modules that don't belong to
> a larger module collection. (The root package isn't really a package,
> since it doesn't have an \file{\_\_init\_\_.py} file. But we have to
> call it something.)
>
> Confusing enough? I thought so...
>
> Greg
> --
> Greg Ward - Unix nerd gward@python.net
> http://starship.python.net/~gward/
> Beware of altruism. It is based on self-deception, the root of all evil.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org
> http://www.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
>
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