On Nov 30, 2011, at 6:39 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 1:28 AM, PJ Eby wrote:
>> It doesn't help at all that I'm not really in a position to provide an
>> implementation, and the persons most likely to implement have been leaning
>> somewhat towards 382, or wanting to modify 4
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 1:28 AM, PJ Eby wrote:
> It doesn't help at all that I'm not really in a position to provide an
> implementation, and the persons most likely to implement have been leaning
> somewhat towards 382, or wanting to modify 402 such that it uses .pyp
> directory extensions so that
> If this helps, I am +1, and I’m sure other devs will chime in. I think
> the feature is useful, and I prefer 402’s way to 382’s pyp directories.
If that's the obstacle to adopting PEP 382, it would be easy to revert
the PEP back to having file markers to indicate package-ness. I insist
on havin
Hi,
Thanks for the replies.
> At this point, though, before doing any more work on the PEP I'd
> like to have some idea of whether there's any chance of it being accepted.
> At this point, there seems to be a lot of passive, "Usenet nod syndrome"
> type support for it, but little active support.
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 11:53 AM, Éric Araujo wrote:
> > Le 11/08/2011 20:30, P.J. Eby a écrit :
> >> At 04:39 PM 8/11/2011 +0200, Éric Araujo wrote:
> >>> I’ll just regret that it's not possible to provide a module docstring
> >>> to inform that this is a namespace package used for X and Y.
> >
Hi,
Going through my email backlog.
> Le 11/08/2011 20:30, P.J. Eby a écrit :
>> At 04:39 PM 8/11/2011 +0200, Éric Araujo wrote:
(By the way, both of these additions to the import protocol (i.e. the
dynamically-added ``__path__``, and dynamically-created modules)
apply recursively
At 05:03 PM 8/12/2011 -0400, Glyph Lefkowitz wrote:
Are there any rules about passing invalid identifiers to __import__
though, or is that just less likely? :)
I suppose you have a point there. ;-)
I still like the idea of a 'marker' file. It would be great if
there were a new marker like
On Aug 12, 2011, at 2:33 PM, P.J. Eby wrote:
> At 01:09 PM 8/12/2011 -0400, Glyph Lefkowitz wrote:
>> Upon further reflection, PEP 402 _will_ make dealing with namespace packages
>> from this code considerably easier: we won't need to do AST analysis to look
>> for a __path__ attribute or anyth
At 01:09 PM 8/12/2011 -0400, Glyph Lefkowitz wrote:
Upon further reflection, PEP 402 _will_ make dealing with namespace
packages from this code considerably easier: we won't need to do AST
analysis to look for a __path__ attribute or anything gross like
that improve correctness; we can just loo
On Aug 12, 2011, at 11:24 AM, P.J. Eby wrote:
> That is, the above code hardocdes a variety of assumptions about the import
> system that haven't been true since Python 2.3.
Thanks for this feedback. I honestly did not realize how old and creaky this
code had gotten. It was originally develo
At 02:02 PM 8/11/2011 -0400, Glyph Lefkowitz wrote:
Rather than a one-by-one ad-hoc consideration of which attribute
should be set to None or empty strings or "" or what have
you, I'd really like to see a discussion in the PEP saying what a
package really is vs. what a module is, and what one c
Éric Araujo netwok.org> writes:
> Besides, putting data files in a Python package is held very poorly by
> some (mostly people following the File Hierarchy Standard), and in
> distutils2/packaging, we (will) have a resources system that’s as
> convenient for users and more flexible for OS package
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 4:30 AM, P.J. Eby wrote:
> At 04:39 PM 8/11/2011 +0200, Éric Araujo wrote:
>> > The resulting list (whether empty or not) is then stored in a
>> > ``sys.virtual_package_paths`` dictionary, keyed by module name.
>> This was probably said on import-sig, but here I go: yet an
At 04:39 PM 8/11/2011 +0200, Ãric Araujo wrote:
Hi,
I've read PEP 402 and would like to offer comments.
Thanks.
Minor: I would reserve "packaging" for
packaging/distribution/installation/deployment matters, not Python
modules. I suggest "Python package semantics".
Changing to "Python pac
On Thu, 11 Aug 2011 11:39:52 -0400
Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Aug 11, 2011, at 04:39 PM, Éric Araujo wrote:
>
> >> * XXX what is the __file__ of a "pure virtual" package? ``None``?
> >> Some arbitrary string? The path of the first directory with a
> >> trailing separator? No matter what we
On Aug 11, 2011, at 11:39 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Aug 11, 2011, at 04:39 PM, Éric Araujo wrote:
>
>>> * XXX what is the __file__ of a "pure virtual" package? ``None``?
>>> Some arbitrary string? The path of the first directory with a
>>> trailing separator? No matter what we put, *some*
On Aug 11, 2011, at 04:39 PM, Éric Araujo wrote:
>> * XXX what is the __file__ of a "pure virtual" package? ``None``?
>> Some arbitrary string? The path of the first directory with a
>> trailing separator? No matter what we put, *some* code is
>> going to break, but the last choice might
17 matches
Mail list logo
