[Python-3000] packages in the stdlib

[Brett Cannon]

On 5/31/06, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis at pitrou.net> wrote:
>
> Le mardi 30 mai 2006 à 09:25 -0700, Brett Cannon a écrit :
> >
> > I think what needs to happen is decide if we want to group modules
> > into packages (but no deeper than a single depth), and then how to
> > handle general naming (e.g., net.http, net.httplib, http, or
> > httplib?).
>
> I don't see the point of grouping modules into packages.
> It is obvious what "http" is (a network protocol), so why have to write
> "net.http" instead of simply "http" ? It's more things to type and more
> things to remember, without any clear advantage.


That might be true of http, but what about modules with a more ambiguous
name?

The current flat namespace for the standard library is one *very*
> pleasant feature of Python. You only have to remember the module name
> itself, not its position in the hierarchy. Compare this with Java
> or .Net...


But with Java (don't have much .NET experience) the issue is they put data
structures in java.util which doesn't explain anything.  But if it had been
named datastruct or something more meaningful would it be so bad?

Moreover, as someone wrote in another post, if you introduce packages,
> people will write "from gui import wx", so why not just let it be
> "import wx"? We are adults.


We are adults, but doesn't that mean we can also be organized?  We are past
the point of keeping our toys in one big basket and instead have organized
shelves where we separate our Transformers from our Tonka trucks.

The problem with the current naming IMO is the fact it is inconsistent
> and sometimes confusing. I don't think introducing a level of nesting is
> an answer to this problem. Actually, flattening the current nested
> modules would be a good think.


We will be fixing the names on top of categorizing, so that will be
addressed.

(for example, I don't like the way "os.path" is magically imported when
> importing "os". Some functions are in "os", others in "os.path", without
> any clear logical reason. They should all belong in "os" - or any other
> name for that matter).


The magic importation is an implementation artifact from os being around
before packages existed.  If it was done today that wouldn't work that way.

And I would never want to flatten os completely.  Knowing that path
manipulating code is in os.path is handy when you are looking for a function
in the documentation, and especially at the interpreter prompt.  We all know
searching a tree over a list is better!  =)

-Brett

Regards
>
> Antoine.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Python-3000 mailing list
> Python-3000 at python.org
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000
> Unsubscribe:
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/brett%40python.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-3000/attachments/20060531/4a22ea36/attachment-0001.html