Chris Withers wrote:
> Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>>> So this __init__.py can have code in it?
>>
>> That's the point, yes.
>>
>>> And base.tar can have other modules and subpackages in it?
>>
>> Certainly, yes.
>
> Great, when is the PEP due to land in 2.x? ;-)
Most likely, never - it probably will
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
So this __init__.py can have code in it?
That's the point, yes.
And base.tar can have other modules and subpackages in it?
Certainly, yes.
Great, when is the PEP due to land in 2.x? ;-)
What happens if the base and an addon both define a package called
simplistix.
>> Ok, so create three tar files:
>>
>> 1. base.tar, containing
>>
>>simplistix/
>>simplistix/__init__.py
>
> So this __init__.py can have code in it?
That's the point, yes.
> And base.tar can have other modules and subpackages in it?
Certainly, yes.
> What happens if the base and an
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Ok, so create three tar files:
1. base.tar, containing
simplistix/
simplistix/__init__.py
So this __init__.py can have code in it? And base.tar can have other
modules and subpackages in it?
What happens if the base and an addon both define a package called
simpl
>>> In either of the proposals on the table, what code would I write and
>>> where to have a base package with a set of add-on packages?
>>
>> I don't quite understand the question. Why would you want to write code
>> (except for the code that actually is in the packages)?
>>
>> PEP 382 is complete
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
In either of the proposals on the table, what code would I write and
where to have a base package with a set of add-on packages?
I don't quite understand the question. Why would you want to write code
(except for the code that actually is in the packages)?
PEP 382 is com
> In either of the proposals on the table, what code would I write and
> where to have a base package with a set of add-on packages?
I don't quite understand the question. Why would you want to write code
(except for the code that actually is in the packages)?
PEP 382 is completely declarative -
M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
The much more common use case is that of wanting to have a base package
installation which optional add-ons that live in the same logical
package namespace.
The PEP provides a way to solve this use case by giving both developers
and users a standard at hand which they can fo
