Closed darcey closed 3 years ago
This is great. My only question is, when we make this into a package, I assume it will be called fggs, so will there be a module within it called fggs.fggs? I think that’s fine but I’m just checking.
Oh, I hadn't thought about what the package would be called! Maybe this should be fgg.py, so that it's fggs.fgg?
Both modules and packages tend to have plural names (I believe the reason is so that you can name a variable fgg
). I can't really think of a reason why not to have a module named fggs.fggs
, but an alternative would be, I don't know, fggs.core
?
The module names do not have to be visible to the outside world. You can "promote" any symbols to the top-level, e.g., so that fggs.fggs.FGG
is visible as fggs.FGG
.
Aha, ok! In that case, I'm ok with fggs.fggs
. And we can always rename it again later if we want to.
David, I think you suggested this change a while ago, and I figured it was about time. Does this still seem reasonable?