I'm pretty sure the PEP already limits it to the same type as__name__, but
I'll check. We may have assumed that was obvious, so nobody noticed I had
left it out at the time.
--
Sent from my phone, thus the relative brevity :)
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Honestly, updating the PEPs constantly is a pain.
Please understand that Stefan's request is not about updating the PEP
in order to match the current implementation - I agree that this is a
pain, and should not be done. Consequentially, relying on the PEPs
to understand what CPython does is also
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> could someone please add a sentence to PEP 366 that describes the actual
> content of the new "__package__" attribute (and thus, the PEP)?
>
> http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0366/
>
> I had to read through almost the entire docume
Hi,
could someone please add a sentence to PEP 366 that describes the actual
content of the new "__package__" attribute (and thus, the PEP)?
http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0366/
I had to read through almost the entire document to be assured that
"__package__" is really supposed to contain a
