Module Names with . (dots)?

[activescott]

My understanding is that module names must not have a dot in them. For
example, I tried to create a module like scott.appengine.util.py and
put misc utility classes in there. However, python gives the error "No
module named scott.appengine.util". No I've read about packages
(http://docs.python.org/tutorial/modules.html#packages), but packages
appear to require a specific directory structure and several package
initialization files just to create a simple module with "pretty" dot
syntax. Am I missing something?

 

[John Machin]

My understanding is that module names must not have a dot in them. For
example, I tried to create a module like scott.appengine.util.py  and
put misc utility classes in there. However, python gives the error "No
module named scott.appengine.util". No I've read about packages
(http://docs.python.org/tutorial/modules.html#packages), but packages
appear to require a specific directory structure and several package
initialization files just to create a simple module with "pretty" dot
syntax. Am I missing something?

Create a simple module with "pretty" underscore syntax e.g.
scott_appengine_util and move on.

 

[Chris Rebert]

My understanding is that module names must not have a dot in them. For
example, I tried to create a module like scott.appengine.util.py  and
put misc utility classes in there. However, python gives the error "No
module named scott.appengine.util". No I've read about packages
(http://docs.python.org/tutorial/modules.html#packages), but packages
appear to require a specific directory structure and several package
initialization files just to create a simple module with "pretty" dot
syntax. Am I missing something?

I don't think so. As the Zen says, "Flat is better than nested" and
"Simple is better than complex", so there's no need for your
unnecessarily hierarchical name since it's not part of a package;
either go with John's suggestion or rename your module to something
even simpler (e.g. "saeutil").

Cheers,
Chris

 

[activescott]

I don't think so. As the Zen says, "Flat is better than nested" and
"Simple is better than complex", so there's no need for your
unnecessarily hierarchical name since it's not part of a package;
either go with John's suggestion or rename your module to something
even simpler (e.g. "saeutil").

Cheers,
Chris

Okay, thanks for the feedback guys.

 

[activescott]

I don't think so. As the Zen says, "Flat is better than nested" and
"Simple is better than complex", so there's no need for your
unnecessarily hierarchical name since it's not part of a package;
either go with John's suggestion or rename your module to something
even simpler (e.g. "saeutil").

Cheers,
Chris

BTW: I decided to go with 'scottsappengineutil'. I doubt it will
quality me as a zen master but I believe it is progress

 

[bearophileHUGS]

activescott:

BTW: I decided to go with 'scottsappengineutil'.

scottsappengineutil is hard to read and understand. The name split
with underscores is more readable:
scott_appengine_util
Or just:
app_engine_util

Bye,
bearophile