Re: PEP 420: Implicit Namespace Packages
Eric Snow <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.python.import |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CALFfu7CZNo2kX2xmqVzv3R4oG6rg3xvPSY8MD7QhBogsOketiw@mail.gmail.com> |
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Eric V. Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > This reflects (I hope!) the discussions at PyCon. My plan is to produce > an implementation based on the importlib code, and then flush out pieces > of the PEP. > > In particular, I want to make sure the PEP addresses the various > objections that were raised, especially by Nick. Nice work, Eric. PEP 420 is quite clear. I appreciate that not many words are spent on contrasting it with PEP 402. I agree that the PEP needs to be clear on Nick's concerns, one way or the other (especially as they relate to PEP 395). I don't recall any satisfactory resolution on that. Looking forward to hearing more on this. -eric p.s. how often do the PEPs get rebuilt? I saw the PEP as it came across the commits list, but it's not showing up on the site.