A question of terminology: frequently in the Distutils docs I need to refer to the package-that-is-not-a-package, ie. the "root" or "empty" package. I can't decide if I prefer "root package", "empty package" or what. ("Empty" just means the *name* is empty, so it's probably not a very good thing to say "empty package" -- but "package with no name" or "unnamed package" aren't much better.) Is there some accepted convention that I have missed? Here's the definition I've just written for the "Distribution Python Modules" manual: \item[root package] the ``package'' that modules not in a package live in. The vast majority of the standard library is in the root package, as are many small, standalone third-party modules that don't belong to a larger module collection. (The root package isn't really a package, since it doesn't have an \file{\_\_init\_\_.py} file. But we have to call it something.) Confusing enough? I thought so... Greg -- Greg Ward - Unix nerd gward@python.net http://starship.python.net/~gward/ Beware of altruism. It is based on self-deception, the root of all evil.
Greg, If you have to refer to it as a package (which I don't doubt), the correct name is definitely the "root package". A possible clarification of your glossary entry: \item[root package] the root of the hierarchy of packages. (This isn't really a package, since it doesn't have an \file{\_\_init\_\_.py} file. But we have to call it something.) The vast majority of the standard library is in the root package, as are many small, standalone third-party modules that don't belong to a larger module collection. --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
On 25 May 2000, Guido van Rossum said:
A possible clarification of your glossary entry:
\item[root package] the root of the hierarchy of packages. (This isn't really a package, since it doesn't have an \file{\_\_init\_\_.py} file. But we have to call it something.) The vast majority of the standard library is in the root package, as are many small, standalone third-party modules that don't belong to a larger module collection.
I like it. One more sentence and then I'll stop: Unlike regular packages, modules in the root package can be found in many directories: in fact, every directory listed in \code{sys.path} can contribute modules to the root package. (It's OK to refer to sys.path, since this is the manual for developers. The manual for installers is much harder...) Greg -- Greg Ward - Unix bigot gward@python.net http://starship.python.net/~gward/ Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they *aren't* out to get you.
On Thu, 25 May 2000, Greg Ward wrote:
A question of terminology: frequently in the Distutils docs I need to refer to the package-that-is-not-a-package, ie. the "root" or "empty" package. I can't decide if I prefer "root package", "empty package" or what. ("Empty" just means the *name* is empty, so it's probably not a very good thing to say "empty package" -- but "package with no name" or "unnamed package" aren't much better.)
Well, it's not a package -- it's similar to Java's unnamed package, but the idea that it's a package has never been advanced. Why not just call it the global module space (or namespace)? That's the only way I've heard it described, and it's more clear than "empty package" or "unnamed package". -Fred -- Fred L. Drake, Jr. <fdrake at acm.org>
How about "PWAN", the "package without a name"? ;)
-----Original Message----- From: distutils-sig-admin@python.org [mailto:distutils-sig-admin@python.org]On Behalf Of Greg Ward Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2000 5:34 PM To: distutils-sig@python.org; python-dev@python.org Subject: [Distutils] Terminology question
A question of terminology: frequently in the Distutils docs I need to refer to the package-that-is-not-a-package, ie. the "root" or "empty" package. I can't decide if I prefer "root package", "empty package" or what. ("Empty" just means the *name* is empty, so it's probably not a very good thing to say "empty package" -- but "package with no name" or "unnamed package" aren't much better.)
Is there some accepted convention that I have missed?
Here's the definition I've just written for the "Distribution Python Modules" manual:
\item[root package] the ``package'' that modules not in a package live in. The vast majority of the standard library is in the root package, as are many small, standalone third-party modules that don't belong to a larger module collection. (The root package isn't really a package, since it doesn't have an \file{\_\_init\_\_.py} file. But we have to call it something.)
Confusing enough? I thought so...
Greg -- Greg Ward - Unix nerd gward@python.net http://starship.python.net/~gward/ Beware of altruism. It is based on self-deception, the root of all evil.
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://www.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
participants (4)
-
Fred L. Drake -
Greg Ward -
Guido van Rossum -
Lyle Johnson