On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 11:02 AM, Timothy Hochberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm at a bit of a disadvantage since the convention in question hasn't > penetrated the parts of of Python land that I inhabit (which could either > imply something about my experience or about the universality of the 'api' > convention, take your pick). However, I think that I vaguely recall it from > back in my C-programming days, and as I recall/infer/guess the 'api' > namespace is how you are supposed to use the functions in question, while > the actual modules are split out for implementation purposes only.
I haven't been following how many projects have been using the api.py convention, but when I last looked about a year ago there was enthought, peak, zope, trac, etc. See this note for a bit more information: http://neuroimaging.scipy.org/neuroimaging/ni/ticket/86 Hope this helps, -- Jarrod Millman Computational Infrastructure for Research Labs 10 Giannini Hall, UC Berkeley phone: 510.643.4014 http://cirl.berkeley.edu/ _______________________________________________ Numpy-discussion mailing list Numpy-discussion@scipy.org http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion