On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 11:38 AM, Carl Banks <pavlovevide...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 2, 8:32 am, "Martin v. Löwis" <mar...@v.loewis.de> wrote: >> I propose the following PEP for inclusion to Python 3.1. >> Please comment. >> >> Regards, >> Martin >> >> Abstract >> ======== >> >> Namespace packages are a mechanism for splitting a single Python >> package across multiple directories on disk. In current Python >> versions, an algorithm to compute the packages __path__ must be >> formulated. With the enhancement proposed here, the import machinery >> itself will construct the list of directories that make up the >> package. > > -0 > > My main concern is that we'll start seeing all kinds of packages with > names like: > > com.dusinc.sarray.ptookkit.v_1_34_beta.btree.BTree > > The current lack of global package namespace effectively prevents > bureaucratic package naming, which in my mind makes it worth the > cost. However, I'd be willing to believe this can be kept under > control some other way.
Agreed, although I'd be slightly less optimistic on its usage being kept under control. It seems this goes a bit against the "Flat is better than nested" principle. Then again, we also have the "Namespaces are honkingly great" principle to contend with as well, so it's definitely a balancing act. Cheers, Chris -- I have a blog: http://blog.rebertia.com -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
