Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Tue, 2003-12-16 at 05:32, Nick Coghlan wrote: >> [snip description of potential naming conflicts] > Has this ever happened to you in practice? Well, no. But others seemed concerned about it, so I thought I'd try to clarify the problem - the scripts I write don't need anything more than the standard library and win32all. > It seems like the way out would be to start adopting a Java-like > convention for package names. The problem with that in current Python > is that you can't (easily) weave a package's contents from different > locations in the file system. I still like the various suggestions for _giving_ those parts of the system special names. That's what I was trying for, even if the names I chame up with weren't any good. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | Brisbane, Australia Email: ncoghlan at email.com | Mobile: +61 409 573 268
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