On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 1:39 AM, Ville M. Vainio<email address hidden> wrote:
> IPython.ipapi is the top level public api, not IPython. Starting to
> shove stuff to IPython package namespace is messy, and the line should
> be drawn somewhere.
This is meant for 0.11, where we are refactoring the entire layout of
the package. I have no problem whatsoever with some commonly used
names being exposed at the top level, and embedding is certainly a
common enough task.
I actually probably look up the 'standard one-liner' from the docs
more than anything else, so I already see value in having it as an
instantly rememberable/discoverable top-level name.
> If the aim is to reduce typing, provide a root level module that gives
> you access to stuff in IPython package (import ipy; ipy.embed() )
Nope. This, we will most certainly not do, at all.
Packages should not go about polluting the top level *Python* pacakge
namespace, which is a shared resource, for little things like this.
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 1:39 AM, Ville M. Vainio<email address hidden> wrote:
> IPython.ipapi is the top level public api, not IPython. Starting to
> shove stuff to IPython package namespace is messy, and the line should
> be drawn somewhere.
This is meant for 0.11, where we are refactoring the entire layout of
the package. I have no problem whatsoever with some commonly used
names being exposed at the top level, and embedding is certainly a
common enough task.
I actually probably look up the 'standard one-liner' from the docs discoverable top-level name.
more than anything else, so I already see value in having it as an
instantly rememberable/
> If the aim is to reduce typing, provide a root level module that gives
> you access to stuff in IPython package (import ipy; ipy.embed() )
Nope. This, we will most certainly not do, at all.
Packages should not go about polluting the top level *Python* pacakge
namespace, which is a shared resource, for little things like this.