Re: PEP 420: Implicit Namespace Packages

On May 04, 2012, at 11:17 AM, Eric V. Smith wrote:

>I'm not keen on tying all of this to PEP 420 acceptance or rejection,
>but it's not the end of the world.

I think the PEP should be pronounced on before the documentation is written.
If Guido wants to make changes to the spec, it's better not to waste effort.

Are there any more open issues?  Are we ready to ask Guido to pronounce?

I think the feature branch is in pretty good shape, but we can delay merging
it to the main trunk (assuming the PEP gets accepted) until we have more tests
and a first draft of the import semantics documentation.  I don't mind working
in the feature branch for a little while longer.

Cheers,
-Barry