On Oct 25, 11:07 am, kj <no.em...@please.post> wrote: > In "The Zen of Python", one of the "maxims" is "flat is better than > nested"? Why? Can anyone give me a concrete example that illustrates > this point?
I take this as a reference to the layout of the Python standard library and other packages i.e. it's better to have a module hierarchy of depth 1 or 2 and many top level items, than a depth of 5+ and only a few top level items. For instance import re2 import sqlite3 import logging import something_thirdparty vs import java.util.regex import java.sql import java.util.logging import org.example.thirdparty.something There are of course some Python packages that go deeper than 2 (xml.dom.minidom), but the majority are shallow. I think the motivation is to make the packages more discoverable, and to avoid classification arguments (does regex go under util or text). Alone the statement would imply a single, global space ala C but that of course is evil and so one must balance it with "Namespaces are one honking great idea -- let's do more of those!" I don't think it applies to data structures though. If a deeply nested tree models your data well, then use it. Regards, Alex -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
