What do you tink of a package named "z"? (was Re: [ZODB-Dev] Re: Python module namespace pollution)

[Chris McDonough]

On Wed, 2004-04-21 at 12:05, Jim Fulton wrote:
> > Admittedly this has no real technical benefit,
> 
> And even do harm. :)

Right, I came to the same conclusion after reading your response. ;-)

If voting for the master top level namespace name is still meaningful,
see why 'zope' is attractive (no work needs be done), but if it's still
open for voting, I'd rather see "z" as its more abstract and doesn't
need to be associated with the application server.  "z" is a +0 from me
anyway. ;-)  I also really liked the idea of "z.odb" and "z.daemon",
etc.  It just looks and feels nicer.

> I'm very hopeful and fairly confident that the dependency files
> will have the same social benefit without unduly affecting package
> structure.

I hope so!