Re: [Visualpython-users] Let's hash out the documentation for restrictive imports

[C A. R. <an...@ex...>]

On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 7:11 PM, Bruce Sherwood <bas...@nc...> wrote:
>
> I think and hope we're in agreement. My point was a narrow technical
> one, that in the matplotlib case the simplified import could be
> handled with a single file (pylab.py) whereas we need a folder named
> visual due to the existence of visual.graph and visual.factorial and
> possible imports by someone of other files currently in the visual
> folder.

Nothing new to add, I just wanted to briefly chime about a few things
(from older messages too):

) +3, 2, 1 for either "vpython", "vispy", or "visuallib", respectively
as the clean package name, for consistency with related projects
(libvisual looks nice to me, but it does give the impression of a
shared object i suppose)
) clean package should _definitely_ be it's own package/top-level, and
not in the visual namespace
) clean package should have _all_ the functionality, "visual" should
just pull from it like it does from numpy and friends; anything in
"visual" is specific to the backwards compat requirement or
convenience

As for the visual.graph etc. problems... "visual" may indeed need to
remain a package, and visual.graph can pull from the clean package
like anything else within the "visual" package.

I'm looking into it now if there is a way to make a module "pretend"
to be a package, then dynamically create additional modules/etc.
within it's namespace; then maybe we could have a single file called
"visual.py"... not sure yet, I don't know if the import machinery will
allow it.

C Anthony