[Python-Dev] PEP 423 : naming conventions and recipes related to packaging (original) (raw)

PJ Eby pje at telecommunity.com
Wed Jun 27 22:17:33 CEST 2012

On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 10:57 AM, Paul Moore <p.f.moore at gmail.com> wrote:

For complex stuff, subpackages ("import X.Y") might be needed, but that's rare (and even then, key names should be exposed directly from X).

Paul. PS Having said all this, I don't maintain any code on PyPI - I'm a user not a producer. That may affect my perspective...

That, and if you don't work with web stuff or networking stuff. Things having lots of subpackages are quite the rule there.

Also, functional naming for top-level modules is actually an anti-pattern: an invitation to naming conflicts, especially with future stdlib contents. Suppose two people want to write an "email" package? Unless you jam the ownership into the name (e.g. joes_email and bobs_email), what are you supposed to do?

This is why we have popular packages with names like nose and celery and django and pyramid and lamson: because unique memorable names > functionally descriptive names. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20120627/3f8da493/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list