sfepy/sfepy — Issue #61: flatter namespaces
Author: rc
Created: 2012-01-30 10:25:09+00:00
State: open

from sfepy.fem.mesh import mesh -> from sfepy.fem import Mesh

etc.

Migrated from http://code.google.com/p/sfepy/issues/detail?id=57

earlier comments

ondrej.certik said, at 2008-09-08T12:32:20.000Z:

Actually, why not

from sfepy import Mesh

?

robert.cimrman said, at 2008-09-08T12:43:35.000Z:

sfepy is not just FE-engine - it has other stuff (solvers, applications, ...) I would
not mix all together.

ondrej.certik said, at 2008-09-08T12:47:46.000Z:

I still think it's better for all useful classes to be directly in sfepy.

robert.cimrman said, at 2008-09-08T12:52:54.000Z:

On the other hand, now I know easily from which file the function comes from. Well,
the directory structure is likely to change anyway in the process of splitting
"engine" and "front-end" code. This can wait.

ondrej.certik said, at 2008-09-08T13:15:23.000Z:

Well, in fact, you don't know exactly, as you made a mistake on IRC. So this seems to
support my idea and also the Zen of Python:

Flat is better than nested.

robert.cimrman said, at 2008-09-08T13:19:59.000Z:

There is a counter-saying: Namespaces are one honking great idea -- let's do more of
those!

I tried (wrongly) sfepy.fem which would be ok.

ondrej.certik said, at 2008-09-08T13:33:53.000Z:

You didn't convince me. :) But imho we have more important stuff to do now and either
way is fine with me and it's trivial to fix it.

robert.cimrman said, at 2008-09-08T13:37:47.000Z:

You got it ;)

robert.cimrman said, at 2008-10-01T13:21:58.000Z:

Done, see http://hg.sympy.org/sfepy/rev/7134e8c1eb0f