Re: PEP 420: Implicit Namespace Packages

On 4/21/2012 4:50 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
> 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?

What's the use case for this?

>> 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.

I don't recall this issue specifically, but I agree with Martin that
we're trying to start with a minimal feature set.

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

Furthermore, given how __path__ is built, by one-at-a-time remembering
the path entries that have a foo directory but no foo/__init__.py, I'm
not sure how you'd turn that into some auto-updating iterable.

Eric.