Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.python > #106457

Re: Best Practices for Internal Package Structure

Path csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!not-for-mail
From "Sven R. Kunze" <srkunze@mail.de>
Newsgroups comp.lang.python
Subject Re: Best Practices for Internal Package Structure
Date Mon, 4 Apr 2016 19:03:11 +0200
Lines 38
Message-ID <mailman.28.1459789399.32530.python-list@python.org> (permalink)
References <22a2f21d-7fd2-468a-9b6e-184837506157@googlegroups.com> <57029E4F.1070606@mail.de>
Mime-Version 1.0
Content-Type text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding 8bit
X-Trace news.uni-berlin.de cFPf3RheR4c4Crlr8SDmQQ2iyxzl8JoJMRbrGfhGLCeQ==
Return-Path <srkunze@mail.de>
X-Original-To python-list@python.org
Delivered-To python-list@mail.python.org
X-Spam-Status OK 0.020
X-Spam-Evidence '*H*': 0.96; '*S*': 0.00; 'nicely': 0.07; 'url:github': 0.09; 'bug': 0.10; 'itself.': 0.11; 'output': 0.13; 'package,': 0.13; 'question.': 0.13; 'weird': 0.15; '__init__.py': 0.16; 'layout,': 0.16; 'received:io': 0.16; 'received:psf.io': 0.16; 'wrote:': 0.16; 'do.': 0.22; 'seems': 0.23; 'originally': 0.23; 'this:': 0.23; "haven't": 0.24; 'header:In-Reply-To:1': 0.24; 'discussion': 0.24; 'question': 0.27; 'projects,': 0.27; 'specifically': 0.28; 'looks': 0.29; 'josh': 0.29; 'asked': 0.29; 'code': 0.30; "i'd": 0.31; 'maybe': 0.33; 'similar': 0.33; 'received:10.0': 0.34; 'best,': 0.35; 'requiring': 0.35; 'but': 0.36; 'should': 0.36; 'possible.': 0.36; 'modules': 0.36; 'to:addr :python-list': 0.36; 'subject:: ': 0.37; 'received:10': 0.37; 'things': 0.38; 'feedback': 0.38; 'does': 0.39; 'to:addr:python.org': 0.40; 'received:de': 0.40; 'some': 0.40; 'more': 0.63; 'here:': 0.63; 'within': 0.64; '18:47,': 0.84; 'internally.': 0.84; 'subject:Internal': 0.84; 'subject:Practices': 0.84; 'subject:Best': 0.93
DKIM-Signature v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=mail.de; s=mail201212; t=1459789392; bh=hfj0ZWMvi+kcZl9fGirFVxUaInlaWH8sKMw+mUsJ/Ao=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=kuTgzqiLg4m8PWxBU0+mCHNjya4eHseqTdNpXcowiwDSLqofnjblIto6M1ARgVvmB vT90E79w2rHwH+CKwszIjs5WlrQFAp1o23/NpoOmWjXluzOi2Ora4yC17+ifAQVp5s qG+mOm4Bofx7B3W7TXHPqYivvY9Y8bzaZI1n3YjU=
In-Reply-To <22a2f21d-7fd2-468a-9b6e-184837506157@googlegroups.com>
X-purgate clean
X-purgate This mail is considered clean (visit http://www.eleven.de for further information)
X-purgate-type clean
X-purgate-Ad Categorized by eleven eXpurgate (R) http://www.eleven.de
X-purgate This mail is considered clean (visit http://www.eleven.de for further information)
X-purgate clean
X-purgate-size 1225
X-purgate-ID 154282::1459789392-00000859-0A343B72/0/0
X-BeenThere python-list@python.org
X-Mailman-Version 2.1.21
Precedence list
List-Id General discussion list for the Python programming language <python-list.python.org>
List-Unsubscribe <https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-list>, <mailto:python-list-request@python.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/>
List-Post <mailto:python-list@python.org>
List-Help <mailto:python-list-request@python.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe <https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list>, <mailto:python-list-request@python.org?subject=subscribe>
X-Mailman-Original-Message-ID <57029E4F.1070606@mail.de>
X-Mailman-Original-References <22a2f21d-7fd2-468a-9b6e-184837506157@googlegroups.com>
Xref csiph.com comp.lang.python:106457

Show key headers only | View raw

Hi Josh,

good question.

On 04.04.2016 18:47, Josh B. wrote:
> My package, available at https://github.com/jab/bidict, is currently laid out like this:
>
> bidict/
> ├── __init__.py
> ├── _bidict.py
> ├── _common.py
> ├── _frozen.py
> ├── _loose.py
> ├── _named.py
> ├── _ordered.py
> ├── compat.py
> ├── util.py
>
>
> I'd like to get some more feedback on a question about this layout that I originally asked here: <https://github.com/jab/bidict/pull/33#issuecomment-193877248>:
>
> What do you think of the code layout, specifically the use of the _foo modules? It seems well-factored to me, but I haven't seen things laid out this way very often in other projects, and I'd like to do this as nicely as possible.
>
> It does kind of bug me that you see the _foo modules in the output when you do things like this:
> [code]

we had a similar discussion internally. We have various packages 
requiring each other but have some internals that should not be used 
outside of them.

The _ signifies that actually clearly but it looks weird within the 
package itself.

We haven't found a solution so far. Maybe others do.


Best,
Sven

Back to comp.lang.python | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Best Practices for Internal Package Structure "Josh B." <jabronson@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 09:47 -0700
  Re: Best Practices for Internal Package Structure "Sven R. Kunze" <srkunze@mail.de> - 2016-04-04 19:03 +0200
  Re: Best Practices for Internal Package Structure Michael Selik <michael.selik@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 18:45 +0000
  Re: Best Practices for Internal Package Structure Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-04-04 21:15 +0100
  Re: Best Practices for Internal Package Structure Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-04-05 11:43 +1000
    Re: Best Practices for Internal Package Structure Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-04-06 09:29 +1000
    Re: Best Practices for Internal Package Structure Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-04-06 09:38 +1000
      Re: Best Practices for Internal Package Structure Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-04-06 12:09 +1000
    Re: Best Practices for Internal Package Structure Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-04-06 11:46 +1000

csiph-web