Re: [Python-Dev] Dropping __init__.py requirement for subpackages

+1 Excellent Change +1 Minimal Backward Compatibility Difficulties I think this would also help quite a bit with newbie adoption of Python. I've had to explain this un-feature on numerous occassions and it given how smart Python is, I've wondered why it has this requirement. If you look in vario

Re: [Python-Dev] Dropping __init__.py requirement for subpackages

Thomas Wouters wrote: > Indeed! I hadn't realized that, although I might've if I'd been able to > find where Modules is put on sys.path. And, likewise, I would do as you > suggest (which feels like the right thing) if I could only find out > where Modules is put on sys.path :) I don't have time to

Re: [Python-Dev] Dropping __init__.py requirement for subpackages

On 4/28/06, Thomas Heller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Would not another way be to make sure Modules is moved *behind* thesetup.py build directory on sys.path?Indeed! I hadn't realized that, although I might've if I'd been able to find where Modules is put on sys.path. And, likewise, I would do as y

Re: [Python-Dev] Dropping __init__.py requirement for subpackages

Thomas Wouters wrote: > On 4/27/06, Thomas Wouters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Alrighty then. The list has about 12 hours to convince me (and you) that >> it's a bad idea to generate that warning. I'll be asleep by the time the >> trunk un-freezes, and I have a string of early meetings tomorrow.

Re: [Python-Dev] Dropping __init__.py requirement for subpackages

On 4/27/06, Thomas Wouters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I could check it in, except the make-testall I ran overnight showed a small > problem: the patch would generate a number of spurious warnings in the > trunk: > > /home/thomas/python/python/trunk/Lib/gzip.py:9: > ImportWarning: Not importing di

Re: [Python-Dev] Dropping __init__.py requirement for subpackages

On 4/27/06, Thomas Wouters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 4/27/06, Gustavo Carneiro < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Besides, Guido's original proposal is not a fix for your problem, either; he only proposes to change the requirement for *sub*packages.   It *is* a solution for my problem.  I don't need

Re: [Python-Dev] Dropping __init__.py requirement for subpackages

On 4/27/06, Gustavo Carneiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Besides, Guido's original proposal is not a fix for your problem, either; he only proposes to change the requirement for *sub*packages.   It *is* a solution for my problem.  I don't need the __init__.py file for anything, since I don't need a

Re: [Python-Dev] Dropping __init__.py requirement for subpackages

On 4/27/06, Thomas Wouters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 4/27/06, Gustavo Carneiro < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 4/27/06, Phillip J. Eby < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: At 03:48 PM 4/27/2006 +0200, Bernhard Herzog wrote:>"Gustavo Carneiro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > writes:>> >   Now the problem.  Suppose

Re: [Python-Dev] Dropping __init__.py requirement for subpackages

On 4/27/06, Gustavo Carneiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 4/27/06, Phillip J. Eby < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: At 03:48 PM 4/27/2006 +0200, Bernhard Herzog wrote:>"Gustavo Carneiro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > writes:>> >   Now the problem.  Suppose you have the source package python-foo-bar, > > which in

Re: [Python-Dev] Dropping __init__.py requirement for subpackages

On 4/27/06, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: At 03:48 PM 4/27/2006 +0200, Bernhard Herzog wrote:>"Gustavo Carneiro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:>> >   Now the problem.  Suppose you have the source package python-foo-bar, > > which installs $pythondir/foo/__init__.py and $pythondir/foo/bar.p

Re: [Python-Dev] Dropping __init__.py requirement for subpackages

At 03:48 PM 4/27/2006 +0200, Bernhard Herzog wrote: >"Gustavo Carneiro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Now the problem. Suppose you have the source package python-foo-bar, > > which installs $pythondir/foo/__init__.py and $pythondir/foo/bar.py. This > > would make a module called "foo.bar" a

Re: [Python-Dev] Dropping __init__.py requirement for subpackages

On 4/27/06, Thomas Wouters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Alrighty then. The list has about 12 hours to convince me (and you) that it's a bad idea to generate that warning. I'll be asleep by the time the trunk un-freezes, and I have a string of early meetings tomorrow. I'll get to it somewhere in the a

Re: [Python-Dev] Dropping __init__.py requirement for subpackages

"Gustavo Carneiro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Now the problem. Suppose you have the source package python-foo-bar, > which installs $pythondir/foo/__init__.py and $pythondir/foo/bar.py. This > would make a module called "foo.bar" available. Likewise, you can have the > source package pytho

Re: [Python-Dev] Dropping __init__.py requirement for subpackages

On 4/26/06, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:[...] So I have a very simple proposal: keep the __init__.py requirement fortop-level pacakages, but drop it for subpackages. This should be asmall change. I'm hesitant to propose *anything* new for Python 2.5,so I'm proposing it for 2.6; if N

Re: [Python-Dev] Dropping __init__.py requirement for subpackages

>> 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? Guido> What's the use case for that? Have you run into this requirement? Yes, we run into it. We typically install a package with any resources in a res

Re: [Python-Dev] Dropping __init__.py requirement for subpackages

Guido> One particular egregious problem is that *subpackage* are subject Guido> to the same rule. It so happens that there is essentially only Guido> one top-level package in the Google code base, and it already has Guido> an __init__.py file. But developers create new subpackages

Re: [Python-Dev] Dropping __init__.py requirement for subpackages

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

Re: [Python-Dev] Dropping __init__.py requirement for subpackages

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

Re: [Python-Dev] Dropping __init__.py requirement for subpackages

Guido van Rossum python.org> writes: > The requirement that a directlry must contain an __init__.py file > before it is considered a valid package has always been controversial. > It's designed to prevent the existence of a directory with a common > name like "time" or "string" from preventing fu

Re: [Python-Dev] Dropping __init__.py requirement for subpackages

On Thursday 27 April 2006 17:47, Paul Moore wrote: > FWIW, I still have every confidence in your judgement about > features. However, I'd have to say that your timing sucks :-) Your > initial message read to me as "Quick! I'm about to get lynched here > - can I have the OK to shove this change in b

Re: [Python-Dev] Dropping __init__.py requirement for subpackages

On 4/27/06, Paul Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > However, I'd have to say that your timing sucks :-) Your initial > message read to me as "Quick! I'm about to get lynched here - can I > have the OK to shove this change in before a2 goes out?" And this just proves that my response wasn't anywher

Re: [Python-Dev] Dropping __init__.py requirement for subpackages

On 4/27/06, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 4/26/06, Thomas Wouters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Of course, I only consider *my* reasons to be valid, and mine weren't > > knee-jerk or tool-related. I don't think Python should be going "Oh, what > > you wanted wasn't possible, but

Re: [Python-Dev] Dropping __init__.py requirement for subpackages

On Wed, Apr 26, 2006, Guido van Rossum wrote: > > Which is why I said earlier that I felt disappointed that we can't > change anything any more. I've been here since Python 1.5.1. I don't understand why this issue in particular makes you feel disappointed. I also think your statement is just pla

Re: [Python-Dev] Dropping __init__.py requirement for subpackages

On 4/26/06, Fred L. Drake, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Indeed. I think the problem many of us have with the proposal isn't the new > behavior, but the change in the behavior. That's certainly it for me. Which is why I said earlier that I felt disappointed that we can't change anything any m

Re: [Python-Dev] Dropping __init__.py requirement for subpackages

On Wednesday 26 April 2006 22:42, Barry Warsaw wrote: > So I suspect > you're right when you say that if the rule had already been relaxed and > you were now proposing to tighten the rules, we probably get just as > many complaints. Indeed. I think the problem many of us have with the proposa

Re: [Python-Dev] Dropping __init__.py requirement for subpackages

Boy, threads here sure move fast when there's work to be done :). Although largely moot now, I'll follow up for posterity's sake. On Wed, 2006-04-26 at 10:59 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote: > Oh, cool gray area. I propose that if there's no __init__.py it prints > '/sub1/sun2/' i.e. with a trailin

Re: [Python-Dev] Dropping __init__.py requirement for subpackages

On 4/26/06, Anthony Baxter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thursday 27 April 2006 06:49, Guido van Rossum wrote: > > OK, forget it. I'll face the pitchforks. > > > > I'm disappointed though -- it sounds like we can never change > > anything about Python any more because it will upset the oldtimers.

Re: [Python-Dev] Dropping __init__.py requirement for subpackages

On Thursday 27 April 2006 06:49, Guido van Rossum wrote: > OK, forget it. I'll face the pitchforks. > > I'm disappointed though -- it sounds like we can never change > anything about Python any more because it will upset the oldtimers. I'm not averse to changing this - just not to changing it on s

Re: [Python-Dev] Dropping __init__.py requirement for subpackages

On Thursday 27 April 2006 05:50, Phillip J. Eby wrote: > Anyway, I'm not opposed to the idea of supporting this in future > Pythons, but I definitely think it falls under the "but sometimes > never is better than RIGHT now" rule where 2.5 is concerned. :) I agree fully. I don't think we should t

Re: [Python-Dev] Dropping __init__.py requirement for subpackages

At 04:57 PM 4/26/2006 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote: >On 4/26/06, Delaney, Timothy (Tim) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Possibly. Perhaps it would be useful to have `is_package(dirname)`, > > `is_rootpackage(dirname)` and `is_subpackage(dirname)` functions > > somewhere (pkgutils?). > >YAGNI. Also

Re: [Python-Dev] Dropping __init__.py requirement for subpackages

On 4/26/06, Delaney, Timothy (Tim) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Potential packages later in the path won't be > warned about. If you're trying to resolve import problems, it's just as > likely that the package you really want is later in sys.path than > earlier. But module hiding is a feature, and

Re: [Python-Dev] Dropping __init__.py requirement for subpackages

At 01:10 AM 4/27/2006 +0200, Thomas Wouters wrote: >On 4/27/06, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >wrote: >>I'd worry that it'll cause complaints when the warning is incorrect >>and a certain directory is being skipped intentionally. E.g. the >>"string" directory that

Re: [Python-Dev] Dropping __init__.py requirement for subpackages

Guido van Rossum wrote: > The difference is that if you find a valid module package later on the > path, you'll still get warnings. This is the bit I don't like about it. Currently the warnings are displayed as the packages are found. I'd be quite happy with the warnings if they were suppressed u

Re: [Python-Dev] Dropping __init__.py requirement for subpackages

On 4/26/06, Delaney, Timothy (Tim) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I really think it would be more useful having an ImportError containing > a suggestion than having a warning. Anyone who knows it's bogus can just > ignore it. That's effectively what Thomas's patch does though -- if at the end the pa

Re: [Python-Dev] Dropping __init__.py requirement for subpackages

On 4/26/06, Thomas Wouters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Of course, I only consider *my* reasons to be valid, and mine weren't > knee-jerk or tool-related. I don't think Python should be going "Oh, what > you wanted wasn't possible, but I think I know what you wanted, let me do it > for you", first

Re: [Python-Dev] Dropping __init__.py requirement for subpackages

Guido van Rossum wrote: >> http://python.org/sf/1477281 >> >> (You can call it 'oldtimer-repellant' if you want to use it to >> convince people there isn't any *real* backward-compatibility issue.) > > I'd worry that it'll cause complaints when the warning is incorrect > and a certain directory

Re: [Python-Dev] Dropping __init__.py requirement for subpackages

On 4/27/06, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 4/26/06, Thomas Wouters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>>> On 4/26/06, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > OK, forget it. I'll face the pitchforks.>>> Maybe this'll help:>> http://python.org/sf/1477281>> (You can call it 'oldtimer-re

Re: [Python-Dev] Dropping __init__.py requirement for subpackages

On 4/26/06, Thomas Wouters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 4/26/06, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > OK, forget it. I'll face the pitchforks. > > > Maybe this'll help: > > http://python.org/sf/1477281 > > (You can call it 'oldtimer-repellant' if you want to use it to convince > p

Re: [Python-Dev] Dropping __init__.py requirement for subpackages

On 4/26/06, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: OK, forget it. I'll face the pitchforks.Maybe this'll help:http://python.org/sf/1477281 (You can call it 'oldtimer-repellant' if you want to use it to convince people there isn't any *real* backward-compatibility issue.) I'm disappointed thoug

Re: [Python-Dev] Dropping __init__.py requirement for subpackages

Joe Smith wrote: > It seems to me that the right way to fix this is to simply make a small > change to the error message. > On a failed import, have the code check if there is a directory that would > have been the requested package if > it had contained an __init__ module. If there is then appe

Re: [Python-Dev] Dropping __init__.py requirement for subpackages

"Phillip J. Eby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>It might also be good to check that the directory actually contained >>python >>modules. > > This is a great idea, but might be hard to implement in practice with the > current C implementation of import, at least for

Re: [Python-Dev] Dropping __init__.py requirement for subpackages

On Apr 26, 2006, at 4:49 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote: > OK, forget it. I'll face the pitchforks. > > I'm disappointed though -- it sounds like we can never change anything > about Python any more because it will upset the oldtimers. > No, you can not make a change which has a tiny (and arguably n

Re: [Python-Dev] Dropping __init__.py requirement for subpackages

On 4/26/06, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 01:49 PM 4/26/2006 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote: > >OK, forget it. I'll face the pitchforks. > > > >I'm disappointed though -- it sounds like we can never change anything > >about Python any more because it will upset the oldtimers. > > I

Re: [Python-Dev] Dropping __init__.py requirement for subpackages

On 4/26/06, Terry Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I would suggest adding a hook to their version control system to > automatically create (and preferably also check out) an __init__.py file > whenever a new (source code) directory was placed under version control > (supposing you can distinguish

Re: [Python-Dev] Dropping __init__.py requirement for subpackages

At 01:49 PM 4/26/2006 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote: >OK, forget it. I'll face the pitchforks. > >I'm disappointed though -- it sounds like we can never change anything >about Python any more because it will upset the oldtimers. I know exactly how you feel. :) But there's always Python 3.0, and

Re: [Python-Dev] Dropping __init__.py requirement for subpackages

It might be helpful to consider how people would tackle Guido's problem by pretending that a regular Joe (i.e., someone who couldn't consider changing the semantics of Python itself) had asked this question. I would suggest adding a hook to their version control system to automatically create (and

Re: [Python-Dev] Dropping __init__.py requirement for subpackages

At 04:33 PM 4/26/2006 -0400, Joe Smith wrote: >It seems to me that the right way to fix this is to simply make a small >change to the error message. >On a failed import, have the code check if there is a directory that would >have been the requested package if >it had contained an __init__ module.

Re: [Python-Dev] Dropping __init__.py requirement for subpackages

OK, forget it. I'll face the pitchforks. I'm disappointed though -- it sounds like we can never change anything about Python any more because it will upset the oldtimers. -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) ___ Python-Dev ma

Re: [Python-Dev] Dropping __init__.py requirement for subpackages

"Guido van Rossum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > (Context: There's a large crowd with pitchforks and other sharp pointy > farm implements just outside the door of my office at Google. They are > making an unbelievable racket. It appears they are Google engineers >

Re: [Python-Dev] Dropping __init__.py requirement for subpackages

Phillip J. Eby wrote: >> I assume you want >> >> import x.y >> >> to fail if y is an empty directory (or non-empty, but without .py >> files). I don't see a value in implementing such a restriction. > > No, I'm saying that tools which are looking for packages and asking, "Is > this directory a pac

Re: [Python-Dev] Dropping __init__.py requirement for subpackages

Phillip J. Eby wrote: > At 11:50 AM 4/26/2006 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote: >> I'm not sure what you mean by "one directory read". You'd have to list >> the entire directory, which may require reading more than one block if >> the directory is large. > > You have to do this to find an __init__.py

Re: [Python-Dev] Dropping __init__.py requirement for subpackages

At 09:56 PM 4/26/2006 +0200, Martin v. Löwis wrote: >Phillip J. Eby wrote: > > My counter-proposal: to be considered a package, a directory must contain > > at least one module (which of course can be __init__). This allows the > "is > > it a package?" question to be answered with only one direct

Re: [Python-Dev] Dropping __init__.py requirement for subpackages

On 4/26/06, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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

Re: [Python-Dev] Dropping __init__.py requirement for subpackages

Phillip J. Eby wrote: > My counter-proposal: to be considered a package, a directory must contain > at least one module (which of course can be __init__). This allows the "is > it a package?" question to be answered with only one directory read, as is > the case now. Think of it also as a nudg

Re: [Python-Dev] Dropping __init__.py requirement for subpackages

At 11:50 AM 4/26/2006 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote: >I'm not sure what you mean by "one directory read". You'd have to list >the entire directory, which may require reading more than one block if >the directory is large. You have to do this to find an __init__.py too, don't you? Technically, th

Re: [Python-Dev] Dropping __init__.py requirement for subpackages

Guido van Rossum wrote: > On 4/26/06, Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>On Wed, 2006-04-26 at 10:16 -0700, 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 >>>smal

Re: [Python-Dev] Dropping __init__.py requirement for subpackages

On Wednesday 26 April 2006 15:05, André Malo wrote: > Another point is that one can even hide supplementary packages within such > a subdirectory. It's only visible to scripts inside the dir (I admit, that > the latter is not a real usecase, just a thought that came up while > writing this up).

Re: [Python-Dev] Dropping __init__.py requirement for subpackages

Guido van Rossum wrote: > On 4/26/06, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> At 10:16 AM 4/26/2006 -0700, 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. >> Note that many tools exist whic

Re: [Python-Dev] Dropping __init__.py requirement for subpackages

* Guido van Rossum wrote: [me] > > 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 impli

Re: [Python-Dev] Dropping __init__.py requirement for subpackages

Guido van Rossum wrote: > On 4/26/06, Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Wed, 2006-04-26 at 10:16 -0700, 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

Re: [Python-Dev] Dropping __init__.py requirement for subpackages

On 4/26/06, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 10:16 AM 4/26/2006 -0700, 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. > > Note that many tools exist which have grown to rely on the

Re: [Python-Dev] Dropping __init__.py requirement for subpackages

On 4/26/06, André Malo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > * Guido van Rossum wrote: > > > On 4/26/06, André Malo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 subpackag

Re: [Python-Dev] Dropping __init__.py requirement for subpackages

Sounds a bit like the tail wagging the dog. I thought the Google geeks were a smart bunch. ISTM that something like Phillip Eby's code would be the most expedient solution. I would add one extension: if a package directory without an __init__.py file *is* encountered, an empty __init__.py file sho

Re: [Python-Dev] Dropping __init__.py requirement for subpackages

On 4/26/06, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 4/26/06, Benji York <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. I don't particularly like it. You still n

Re: [Python-Dev] Dropping __init__.py requirement for subpackages

At 02:07 PM 4/26/2006 -0400, Phillip J. Eby wrote: > def find_module(self, fullname, path=None): > # Note: we ignore 'path' argument since it is only used via >meta_path > subname = fullname.split(".")[-1] > if os.path.isdir(os.path.join(self.path, su

Re: [Python-Dev] Dropping __init__.py requirement for subpackages

At 10:16 AM 4/26/2006 -0700, 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. Note that many tools exist which have grown to rely on the presence of __init__ modules. Also, although your proposal wo

Re: [Python-Dev] Dropping __init__.py requirement for subpackages

* Guido van Rossum wrote: > On 4/26/06, André Malo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 prop

Re: [Python-Dev] Dropping __init__.py requirement for subpackages

On 4/26/06, Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 2006-04-26 at 10:16 -0700, 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 prop

Re: [Python-Dev] Dropping __init__.py requirement for subpackages

On Wed, 2006-04-26 at 10:16 -0700, 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

Re: [Python-Dev] Dropping __init__.py requirement for subpackages

On 4/26/06, Benji York <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. > > So this would mean that current non-package subdirectories in a package > (that contain th

Re: [Python-Dev] Dropping __init__.py requirement for subpackages

On 4/26/06, André Malo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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,

Re: [Python-Dev] Dropping __init__.py requirement for subpackages

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. So this would mean that current non-package subdirectories in a package (that contain things like data files or configuration info) would become pa

Re: [Python-Dev] Dropping __init__.py requirement for subpackages

* 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 th

[Python-Dev] Dropping __init__.py requirement for subpackages

(Context: There's a large crowd with pitchforks and other sharp pointy farm implements just outside the door of my office at Google. They are making an unbelievable racket. It appears they are Google engineers who have been bitten by a misfeature of Python, and they won't let me go home before I ha