Best Practices for Internal Package Structure

[Mark Lawrence]

On 04/04/2016 19:45, Michael Selik wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 6:04 PM Sven R. Kunze <srkunze at mail.de> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Using the _module.py convention for internals is fine, except that you have
> few enough lines of code that you could have far fewer files. Why create a
> package when you can just have a module, bidict.py?
>
> I find it easier to find the right section of my code when I have just a
> few files open rather than a dozen or so in different windows and tabs.
>

+1

-- 
My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask
what you can do for our language.

Mark Lawrence