[Python-Dev] pkgutil, pkg_resource and Python 3.0 name space packages

[Paul Moore]

On 07/01/2008, Raymond Hettinger <python at rcn.com> wrote:
> It is my hope that there will be a great deal of restraint in the effort to group modules into
> packages in Py3.0.

+1

> The best existing indicator we have is the organization of the docs for the standard library.
> I, for one, have a hell of a difficult time finding modules via the "organized" table of
> contents in the Library Reference. Instead, I always go the the Global Module Index
> where the somewhat flat namespace makes it easy to go directly to the module of
> interest. I'm curious whether the other developers have had the same experience -- if so,
> then it is a bad omen for over-organizing the standard library.

Yes, I have the same problem. I had not considered this, but I agree
that it's the best indication available of how a hierarchical
organisation might end up, and what issues there might be.

>From the Zen of Python: "Flat is better than nested".

> There are handful of groupings that are obvious (i.e. html and socket modules going into
> an internet package).

One man's obvious is another man's confusing. I'd stick to Guido's
principle, that packages should only be used where they simplify
sub-names. And even there, use restraint.

I know I was earlier tending more towards the side of having more
packages. I've been convinced otherwise.

Paul.