On 4/27/06, Thomas Wouters <thomas at python.org> wrote: > > > > On 4/27/06, Gustavo Carneiro <gjcarneiro at gmail.com> wrote: > > > Besides, Guido's original proposal is not a fix for your problem, > > > either; he only proposes to change the requirement for *sub*packages. > > > > > > > It *is* a solution for my problem. I don't need the __init__.py file > > for anything, since I don't need anything defined in the the 'foo' > > namespace, only the subpackages foo.bar and foo.zbr . > > > > ... No. Guido's original proposal is not a fix for your problem, because > *it doesn't affect the 'foo' namespace*. Guido's original proposal still > requires foo/__init__.py for your namespace to work, it just makes > foo/bar/__init__.py and foo/zbr/__init__.py optional. > Damn, you're right, I confused subpackage with submodule :P In that case, can I counter-propose to stop requiring the __init__.py file in [foo/__init__.py, foo/bar.py] ? ;-) The proposal would mean that a directory 'foo' with a single file bar.pywould make the module ' foo.bar' available if the parent directory of 'foo' is in sys.path. /me faces the pitchforks. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20060427/463e0135/attachment.html
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