On Oct 15, 4:30 pm, bukzor workithar...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 13, 3:20 pm, Gabriel Genellina gagsl-...@yahoo.com.ar
wrote:
En Tue, 13 Oct 2009 17:38:44 -0300, Buck workithar...@gmail.com escribió:
The only way to get your packages on the PYTHONPATH currently is to:
* install
On Oct 13, 3:20 pm, Gabriel Genellina gagsl-...@yahoo.com.ar
wrote:
En Tue, 13 Oct 2009 17:38:44 -0300, Buck workithar...@gmail.com escribió:
The only way to get your packages on the PYTHONPATH currently is to:
* install the packages to site-packages (I don't have access)
* edit the
En Tue, 13 Oct 2009 03:48:00 -0300, Dennis Lee Bieber
wlfr...@ix.netcom.com escribió:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 16:36:58 -0700, Ethan Furman et...@stoneleaf.us
declaimed the following in gmane.comp.python.general:
coffe table, you look in your car, etc, etc, and so forth. If you move
a file in a
On Oct 12, 4:30 pm, Carl Banks pavlovevide...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 12, 11:24 am, Buck workithar...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 10, 9:44 am, Gabriel Genellina gagsl-...@yahoo.com.ar
wrote:
The good thing is that, if the backend package is properly installed
somewhere in the Python
On Oct 12, 3:34 pm, Gabriel Genellina gagsl-...@yahoo.com.ar
wrote:
En Mon, 12 Oct 2009 15:24:34 -0300, Buck workithar...@gmail.com escribió:
On Oct 10, 9:44 am, Gabriel Genellina gagsl-...@yahoo.com.ar
wrote:
The good thing is that, if the backend package is properly installed
Buck wrote:
[snip]
Steven had the nicest workaround (with the location = __import__
('__main__').__file__ trick), but none of them solve the problem of
the OP: organization of runnable scripts. So far it's been required to
place all runnable scripts directly above any used packages. The
En Tue, 13 Oct 2009 13:28:05 -0300, Buck workithar...@gmail.com escribió:
On Oct 12, 3:34 pm, Gabriel Genellina gagsl-...@yahoo.com.ar
wrote:
Quoting Steven D'Aprano
(changing names slightly):
You would benefit greatly from separating the interface from
the backend. You should arrange
[snip]
The key is to put all the core functionality into a package, and
place the package where Python can find it. Also, it's a good idea
to use relative imports from inside the package. There is no need to
juggle with sys.path nor even set PYTHONPATH nor import __main__ nor
play any
Stephen Hansen wrote:
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Stef Mientki stef.mien...@gmail.com
mailto:stef.mien...@gmail.com wrote:
Hierarchical choices are done on todays knowledge, tomorrow we
might have different views and want/need to arrange things in
another way.
An otter
On Oct 13, 9:37 am, Ethan Furman et...@stoneleaf.us wrote:
Buck wrote:
I'd like to get to zero-installation if possible. It's easy with
simple python scripts, why not packages too? I know the technical
reasons, but I haven't heard any practical reasons.
I don't think we mean the same
On Oct 10, 9:44 am, Gabriel Genellina gagsl-...@yahoo.com.ar
wrote:
The good thing is that, if the backend package is properly installed
somewhere in the Python path ... it still works with no modifications.
I'd like to get to zero-installation if possible. It's easy with
simple python
On Oct 12, 11:24 am, Buck workithar...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 10, 9:44 am, Gabriel Genellina gagsl-...@yahoo.com.ar
wrote:
The good thing is that, if the backend package is properly installed
somewhere in the Python path ... it still works with no modifications.
I'd like to get to
Stef Mientki wrote:
Gabriel Genellina wrote:
[snip]
That's what I meant to say. It IS a zero-installation schema, and it
also works if you properly install the package. Quoting Steven
D'Aprano (changing names slightly):
You would benefit greatly from separating the interface from
the
Stef Mientki wrote:
- I can move the complete project anywhere I like and it should still
work without any modifications (when I move my desk I can still do my work)
Gabriel's organisation satisfies that.
- I can move any file in he project to any other place in the project
and again
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Stef Mientki stef.mien...@gmail.comwrote:
Hierarchical choices are done on todays knowledge, tomorrow we might have
different views and want/need to arrange things in another way.
An otter may become a reptile ;-)
So from the human viewpoint the following
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 13:44:18 -0300, Gabriel Genellina wrote:
The frustrating thing, for me, is that all these requirements are met
if you leave the scripts in jumbled into a flat directory.
I bet that's not true. I bet that they Just Work only if the user cd's
into the directory first. In
On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 16:37:28 -0700, Buck wrote:
Here's a scenario. A user does a cvs checkout into some arbitrary
directory and sees this:
project/
+-- python/
+-- animals.py
+-- mammals/
+-- horse.py
+-- otter.py
+-- reptiles/
+-- gator.py
En Sat, 10 Oct 2009 05:57:08 -0300, Steven D'Aprano
st...@remove-this-cybersource.com.au escribió:
On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 16:37:28 -0700, Buck wrote:
Here's a scenario. A user does a cvs checkout into some arbitrary
directory and sees this:
project/
+-- python/
+-- animals.py
+--
En Sat, 10 Oct 2009 05:57:08 -0300, Steven D'Aprano
st...@remove-this-cybersource.com.au escribió:
On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 16:37:28 -0700, Buck wrote:
Here's a scenario. A user does a cvs checkout into some arbitrary
directory and sees this:
project/
+-- python/
+-- animals.py
+--
Gabriel Genellina wrote:
En Sat, 10 Oct 2009 05:57:08 -0300, Steven D'Aprano
st...@remove-this-cybersource.com.au escribió:
On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 16:37:28 -0700, Buck wrote:
Here's a scenario. A user does a cvs checkout into some arbitrary
directory and sees this:
project/
+-- python/
I think the basically you need to write one python script name it
__init__.py
If you want this script may include functions to reading yours scripts
from folder.
Put this script in each folder and you use Margie solution .
This allow you to use import from each folder .
--
On Oct 5, 8:29 pm, Robert Kern robert.k...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2009-10-05 12:42 PM, Buck wrote:
With the package layout, you would just do:
from parrot.sleeping import sleeping_in_a_bed
from parrot.feeding.eating import eat_cracker
This is really much more straightforward
En Mon, 05 Oct 2009 18:15:15 -0300, Rami Chowdhury
rami.chowdh...@gmail.com escribió:
On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 13:46:09 -0700, Buck workithar...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks. I think we're getting closer to the core of this.
To restate my problem more simply:
My core goal is to have my scripts in
On Oct 5, 11:29 am, Robert Kern robert.k...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2009-10-05 12:42 PM, Buck wrote:
With the package layout, you would just do:
from parrot.sleeping import sleeping_in_a_bed
from parrot.feeding.eating import eat_cracker
This is really much more straightforward
On 2009-10-05 13:48 PM, Buck wrote:
On Oct 5, 11:29 am, Robert Kernrobert.k...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2009-10-05 12:42 PM, Buck wrote:
With the package layout, you would just do:
from parrot.sleeping import sleeping_in_a_bed
from parrot.feeding.eating import eat_cracker
This
On Oct 5, 12:34 pm, Robert Kern robert.k...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2009-10-05 13:48 PM, Buck wrote:
On Oct 5, 11:29 am, Robert Kernrobert.k...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2009-10-05 12:42 PM, Buck wrote:
With the package layout, you would just do:
from parrot.sleeping import
Thanks. I think we're getting closer to the core of this.
To restate my problem more simply:
My core goal is to have my scripts in some sort of organization better
than a single directory, and still have plenty of re-use between them.
The only way I can see to implement this is to have 10+ lines
On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 16:46:12 -0700, Carl Banks wrote:
Notice the key idea in all of this: ONE script. When you design it that
a file can be used either as a script or as a module, you are asking for
trouble.
I agree with everything you said in your post *except* that final
comment. The
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 10:24:13 +0200, Stef Mientki wrote:
I still don't use (because I don't fully understand them) packages, but
by trial and error I found a reasonable good working solution, with the
following specifications
I find that fascinating. You haven't
On 2009-10-04 10:48 AM, Stef Mientki wrote:
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 10:24:13 +0200, Stef Mientki wrote:
I still don't use (because I don't fully understand them) packages, but
by trial and error I found a reasonable good working solution, with the
following specifications
bukzor wrote:
I would assume that putting scripts into a folder with the aim of re-
using pieces of them would be called a package, but since this is an
anti-pattern according to Guido, apparently I'm wrong-headed here.
(Reference:
On Fri, 02 Oct 2009 18:14:44 -0700, bukzor wrote:
I would assume that putting scripts into a folder with the aim of re-
using pieces of them would be called a package,
A package is a special arrangement of folder + modules. To be a package,
there must be a file called __init__.py in the
On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 10:24:13 +0200, Stef Mientki wrote:
I still don't use (because I don't fully understand them) packages, but
by trial and error I found a reasonable good working solution, with the
following specifications
I find that fascinating. You haven't used packages because you don't
Great description - wish the Python docs could be as clear. Thanks.
\d
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
I would assume that putting scripts into a folder with the aim of re-
using pieces of them would be called a package, but since this is an
anti-pattern according to Guido, apparently I'm wrong-headed here.
(Reference: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-3000/2007-April/006793.html
)
Say you
35 matches
Mail list logo
