On 04/04/2016 19:45, Michael Selik wrote:
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.
+1
--
My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask
what you can do for our language.
Mark Lawrence
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
