On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 6:04 PM Sven R. Kunze <srku...@mail.de> wrote:
> Hi Josh, > > good question. > > On 04.04.2016 18:47, Josh B. wrote: > > My package, available at https://github.com/jab/bidict, is currently > laid out like this: > > > > bidict/ > > ├── __init__.py > > ├── _bidict.py > > ├── _common.py > > ├── _frozen.py > > ├── _loose.py > > ├── _named.py > > ├── _ordered.py > > ├── compat.py > > ├── util.py > > > > > > I'd like to get some more feedback on a question about this layout that > I originally asked here: < > https://github.com/jab/bidict/pull/33#issuecomment-193877248>: > > > > What do you think of the code layout, specifically the use of the _foo > modules? It seems well-factored to me, but I haven't seen things laid out > this way very often in other projects, and I'd like to do this as nicely as > possible. > Using the _module.py convention for internals is fine, except that you have few enough lines of code that you could have far fewer files. Why create a package when you can just have a module, bidict.py? I find it easier to find the right section of my code when I have just a few files open rather than a dozen or so in different windows and tabs. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
