RetroSearch Browse

Wed Apr 15 19:38:19 CEST 2009 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2009-April/088774.html

On Apr 15, 2009, at 12:15 PM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:

> The much more common use case is that of wanting to have a base  
> package
> installation which optional add-ons that live in the same logical
> package namespace.
>
> The PEP provides a way to solve this use case by giving both  
> developers
> and users a standard at hand which they can follow without having to
> rely on some non-standard helpers and across Python implementations.

I'm not sure I understand what advantage your proposal gives over the  
current mechanism for doing this.

That is, add to your __init__.py file:

from pkgutil import extend_path
__path__ = extend_path(__path__, __name__)

Can you describe the intended advantages over the status-quo a bit  
more clearly?

James

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2009-April/088774.html below:

[Python-Dev] PEP 382: Namespace Packages