RetroSearch Browse

Wed Nov 3 01:06:56 CET 2010 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2010-November/105204.html

Raymond Hettinger <raymond.hettinger at gmail.com> writes:

> >> Are we permanently locked into the exact ten filenames that are
> >> currently used: utils, suite, loader, case, result, main, signals,
> >> etc?
[…]
> Sounds like a decision to split a module into a package is a big
> commitment. Each of the individual file names becomes a permanent part
> of the API. Even future additional splits are precluded because it
> might break someones dotted import (i.e. not a single function can be
> moved between those files -- once in unittest.utils, alway in
> unittest.utils).

Is this a case where it would be better if the package names had the
leading underscore: ‘_utils’, ‘_suite’, etc.?

Does the convention on single-leading-underscore identifiers as “don't
rely on this name staying the same in future versions” hold for package
names?

-- 
 \         “Alternative explanations are always welcome in science, if |
  `\   they are better and explain more. Alternative explanations that |
_o__) explain nothing are not welcome.” —Victor J. Stenger, 2001-11-05 |
Ben Finney

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2010-November/105204.html below:

[Python-Dev] On breaking modules into packages