Re: PEP 420: Implicit Namespace Packages

On 4/20/2012 12:04 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 6:18 AM, 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.
> 
> One other thing I noticed: "There is no mechanism to recompute the
> __path__ once a namespace package has been created."
> 
> This isn't really true - pkgutil.extend_path() can still be used to
> update a namespace package path. Perhaps change it to:
> 
> "There is no mechanism to automatically recompute the __path__ if
> sys.path is altered after a namespace package has already been
> created. However, existing namespace utilities (like
> pkgutil.extend_path()) can be used to update them explicitly if
> desired."

Done. Thanks!

> Also, as a general matter of readability, adding double backticks
> around attributes, functions and filenames to get them displayed in
> monospace can be quite helpful.

Agreed. That's a work in progress.

Eric.