Thanks Ziga, At 04:42 PM 2/19/2006, you wrote: >RayS wrote: > > I realize that I need to make some changes to follow > > http://www.python.org/doc/essays/styleguide.html > > better. Does anyone have an appropriate URL for me to follow for this > > task? Is one of the C-module guides appropriate? > > > >There are two informal Python Enhancements Proposals: >Style Guide for C Code - http://www.python.org/peps/pep-0007.html >Style Guide for Python Code - http://www.python.org/peps/pep-0008.html
Thanks, those are helpful and show that I should do some editing throughout. The import .moduleName for relative imports might come into play, as each of the modules of the package require the use of LXSerial (oops, I mean: lxserial.Serial :-) ) Given the example structure from Guido: http://www.python.org/peps/pep-0328.html#guido-s-decision package/ __init__.py subpackage1/ __init__.py moduleX.py moduleY.py moduleA.py seems like it would be appropriate here, but I still need to decide on the appropriate hierarchy within the package. Should it be lx200/ __init__.py devices/ __init__.py drive.py focuser.py lxserial.py which reflects usage hierarchy, or lx200/ __init__.py drive.py focuser.py lxserial.py which is simpler... I still don't see a consistent rationale where some packages have empty __init__.py with all the init stuff in the modules, and others don't. And then there's the large-ish modules like wxPyPlot that have almost everything in one module - I assume that is discouraged. Thanks for the info, Ray -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
