[issue29716] Python 3 Module doc still sounds like __init__.py is required

Brett Cannon added the comment: I've gone ahead and closed this. Thanks for taking the time to check in on this, James! -- nosy: +brett.cannon resolution: -> not a bug stage: -> resolved status: open -> closed ___ Python tracker

[issue29716] Python 3 Module doc still sounds like __init__.py is required

Changes by Marco Buttu : -- nosy: +marco.buttu ___ Python tracker ___ ___

[issue29716] Python 3 Module doc still sounds like __init__.py is required

INADA Naoki added the comment: I think so. namespace package is topic for packaging ecosystem developers, like setuptools and pip. Normal python programmer shouldn't omit __init__.py. Python tutorial is for people who want to be normal python programmer. 2017/03/04 午後1:53 "James O"

[issue29716] Python 3 Module doc still sounds like __init__.py is required

James O added the comment: Ah, I didn't realize some tools depended on it. Should I set the status to closed? (like I said, I'm new to this) -- ___ Python tracker

[issue29716] Python 3 Module doc still sounds like __init__.py is required

INADA Naoki added the comment: namespace package is very advanced topic. I don't think tutorial should mention it. Putting __init__.py always in normal package is highly recommended. Otherwise, many tools can't distinguish normal directory and python package. 2017/03/04 午前6:26 "James O"

[issue29716] Python 3 Module doc still sounds like __init__.py is required

New submission from James O: PEP 420 says "Allowing implicit namespace packages means that the requirement to provide an __init__.py file can be dropped completely..." (as described here: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/37139786/is-init-py-not-required-for-packages-in-python-3) The