At 09:59 AM 4/16/2009 +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
I think that for this PEP it's more important to unify
the various use cases for namespace packages than it is to get rid of
the .pth files.
Actually, Martin's proposal *does* get rid of the .pth files in
site-packages, and replaces them with other files inside the
individual packages. (Thereby speeding startup times when many
namespace packages are present but only a few are used.)
So Martin's proposal is a win for performance and even for decreasing
clutter. (The same number of special files will be present, but they
will be moved inside the namespace package directories instead of
being in the parent directory.)
AFAICS the only things PJE has said about base packages is that
(a) they aren't a universal use case for namespace packages, and
(b) he'd like to be able to support them in setuptools, but admits
that at present they aren't.
...and that Martin's proposal would actually permit me to do so,
whereas MAL's proposal would not.
Replacing __init__.py with a __pkg__.py wouldn't change any of the
tradeoffs for how setuptools handles namespace packages, except to
add an extra variable to consider (i.e., two filenames to keep track of).
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
