[Python-Dev] Dropping init.py requirement for subpackages (original) (raw)

Thomas Wouters thomas at python.org
Wed Apr 26 20:22:01 CEST 2006

On 4/26/06, Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> wrote:

On 4/26/06, Benji York <benji at benjiyork.com> wrote: > Guido van Rossum wrote: > > So I have a very simple proposal: keep the init.py requirement for > > top-level pacakages, but drop it for subpackages.

I don't particularly like it. You still need init.py's for 'import *' to work (not that I like or use 'import *' :). The first question that pops into my mind when I think file-less modules is "where does the package-module come from". That question is a lot easier to answer (not to mention explain) when all packages have an init.py. It also adds to Python's consistency (which means people learn something from it that they can apply to other things later; in that case, removing it just hampers their growth.) And besides, it's just not that big a deal.

I don't feel strongly enough about it to object, though. However, I would suggest adding a warning for existing, init.py-less directories that would-have-been imported in 2.5. (There's an alpha3 scheduled, so it doesn't have to go in alpha2 tonight, and it could probably be last-minuted into beta1 too.) That should fix both Google's problems and that of everyone having existing non-package subdirs :-) Then, if it really matters, we can change the import in 2.6.

Note that absolute import (which will be turned on for all in 2.6)

2.7, see the PEP.

-- Thomas Wouters <thomas at python.org>

Hi! I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file to help me spread! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20060426/9d613135/attachment.htm

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list