[Python-Dev] Dropping __init__.py requirement for subpackages
Guido van Rossum
guido at python.org
Wed Apr 26 20:36:13 CEST 2006
On 4/26/06, André Malo <nd at perlig.de> wrote:
> * Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > On 4/26/06, André Malo <nd at perlig.de> wrote:
> > > * Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > > > So I have a very simple proposal: keep the __init__.py requirement
> > > > for top-level pacakages, but drop it for subpackages. This should be
> > > > a small change. I'm hesitant to propose *anything* new for Python
> > > > 2.5, so I'm proposing it for 2.6; if Neal and Anthony think this
> > > > would be okay to add to 2.5, they can do so.
> > >
> > > Not that it would count in any way, but I'd prefer to keep it. How
> > > would I mark a subdirectory as "not-a-package" otherwise?
> > What's the use case for that? Have you run into this requirement? And
> > even if you did, was there a requirement that the subdirectory's name
> > be the same as a standard library module? If the subdirectory's name
> > is not constrained, the easiest way to mark it as a non-package is to
> > put a hyphen or dot in its name; if you can't do that, at least name
> > it something that you don't need to import.
> Actually I have no problems with the change from inside python, but from the
> POV of tools, which walk through the directories, collecting/separating
> python packages and/or supplemental data directories. It's an explicit vs.
> implicit issue, where implicit would mean "kind of heuristics" from now on.
> IMHO it's going to break existing stuff  and should at least not be done
> in such a rush.
>  Well, it does break some of mine ;-)
Can you elaborate? You could always keep the __init__.py files, you know...
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
More information about the Python-Dev