Hi Terry On 2012-W44-5, at 18:56, Terry Reedy wrote:
>> or would you maybe structure the library entirely different? > > Based on my limited experience with subpackages* plus reports on this list > about problems, such as yours, I have concluded that subpackages are an > attractive nuisance that are generally more trouble than they are worth. I > suggest you consider sticking with your original flat (no subpackage) design. > (But maybe someone knows better than me how to make subpackages work ;-). One thing that I would lose is the way I can choose very short names for the packages and modules that are imported into the local namespace (like sip or rtp) and also add new stuff without fearing a namespace conflict in one of the applications using the library. I really hope there is a better way :-(. Michael
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
-- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
