Q on naming nested packages/modules

[Ethan Furman]

kj wrote:
> In <h7jga8$ijj$1 at reader1.panix.com> kj <no.email at please.post> writes:
> 
> 
>>I'm having a hard time getting the hang of Python's package/module
>>scheme.  I'd like to find out what's considered best practice when
>>dealing with the scenario illustrated below.
> 
> 
>>The quick description of the problem is: how can I have two nested
>>modules, spam.ham and spam.ham.eggs?
> 
> 
> Following up my own post...
> 
>>From inspecting the directory structure of some of the standard
> Python modules I infer the following rules:
> 
> 1. the source for "leaf" modules lives in files named after them
>    (e.g. if x.y.z is a "leaf" module, its source code is in x/y/z.py)
> 
> 2. the source for "non-leaf" modules lives in files named __init__.py
>    (e.g. if x.y is a "non-leaf" module, its source code lives in
>    the file x/y/__init__.py)
> 
> In the examples above, the module x.y is a "non-leaf" module because
> there is a module x.y.z.
> 
> I.e. the "leaf"-ness of a module depends solely on whether other
> modules deeper in the hierarchy are present.
> 
> An implication of all this is that if now I wanted to create a new
> module x.y.z.w, this means that the previously "leaf"-module x.y.z
> would become "non-leaf".  In other words, I'd have to:
> 
> 1. create the new directory x/y/z
> 2. *rename* the file x/y/z.py to x/y/z/__init__.py
> 3. create the file x/y/z/w.py to hold the source for the new x.y.z.w
>    module
> 
> Is the above correct?  (BTW, to my Perl-pickled brain, step 2 above
> is the one that causes most distress...  But I think I can cope.)
> 
> kynn

Looking at the layout of the (most excellent!-) xlrd package, the bulk 
of the code is in the __init__.py file, and other supporting code is the 
  same directory, accessed in __init__ with normal imports.

I also am unclear on when it's best to have supporting files in the same 
directory versus a subdirectory... perhaps it is that flat is better 
than nested?

~Ethan~