Re: PEP 420: Implicit Namespace Packages

"Martin v. Löwis" <[email protected]> Sat, 21 Apr 2012 22:50:23 +0200

Newsgroups	gmane.comp.python.import
Message-ID	<[email protected]>

Am 21.04.2012 20:49, schrieb Eric Snow:
> On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 11:06 AM, PJ Eby <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Btw, was there ever an explicit rejection of the "namespace package __path__
>> is an auto-updating iterable instead of a list" approach, or did it even
>> come up in the consensus discussion?
> 
> Pretty sure it didn't come up, but it sounds like Eric Smith has
> considered it. 

There was a sort of bulk-rejection of "fancy features", IIRC. It wasn't
clear to us which of the many additional features of PEP 402 was really
important to you, so the consensus was to start with the minimum, and
extend as actual use cases become apparent.

For some of the PEP 402 features, we identified "concurrent versions"
as the use case (i.e. pkg_resources.require). The consensus was that
this use case can be ignored.

Eric is right that the specific question of a dynamic __path__ was not
discussed.

Regards,
Martin