Python 3.3+中的软件包不需要__init__.py吗

I am using Python 3.5.1. I read the document and the package section here: https://docs.python.org/3/tutorial/modules.html#packages

Now, I have the following structure:

/home/wujek/Playground/a/b/module.py

module.py:

class Foo:
    def __init__(self):
        print('initializing Foo')

Now, while in /home/wujek/Playground:

~/Playground $ python3
>>> import a.b.module
>>> a.b.module.Foo()
initializing Foo
<a.b.module.Foo object at 0x100a8f0b8>

Similarly, now in home, superfolder of Playground:

~ $ PYTHONPATH=Playground python3
>>> import a.b.module
>>> a.b.module.Foo()
initializing Foo
<a.b.module.Foo object at 0x10a5fee10>

Actually, I can do all kinds of stuff:

~ $ PYTHONPATH=Playground python3
>>> import a
>>> import a.b
>>> import Playground.a.b

Why does this work? I though there needed to be __init__.py files (empty ones would work) in both a and b for module.py to be importable when the Python path points to the Playground folder?

This seems to have changed from Python 2.7:

~ $ PYTHONPATH=Playground python
>>> import a
ImportError: No module named a
>>> import a.b
ImportError: No module named a.b
>>> import a.b.module
ImportError: No module named a.b.module

With __init__.py in both ~/Playground/a and ~/Playground/a/b it works fine.

Python 3.3+ has Implicit Namespace Packages that allow it to create a packages without an __init__.py file.

Allowing implicit namespace packages means that the requirement to provide an __init__.py file can be dropped completely, and affected … .

The old way with __init__.py files still works as in Python 2.

IMPORTANT

@Mike’s answer is correct but too imprecise. It is true that Python 3.3+ supports Implicit Namespace Packages that allows it to create a package without an __init__.py file.

This however, ONLY applies to EMPTY __init__.py files. So EMPTY __init__.py files are no longer necessary and can be omitted. If you want to run a particular initialization script when the package or any of its modules or sub-packages are imported, you still require an __init__.py file. This is a great Stack Overflow answer for why you would want to use an __init__.py file to do some further initialization in case you wondering why this is in any way useful.

Directory Structure Example:

  parent_package/
     __init__.py            <- EMPTY, NOT NECESSARY in Python 3.3+
     child_package/
          __init__.py       <- STILL REQUIRED if you want to run an initialization script
          child1.py
          child2.py
          child3.py

parent_package/child_package/__init__.py:

print("from parent")

EXAMPLES

The below examples demonstrate how the initialization script is executed when the child_package or one of its modules is imported.

Example 1:

from parent_package import child_package  # prints "from parent"

Example 2:

from parent_package.child_package import child1  # prints "from parent"

If you have setup.py in your project and you use find_packages() within it, it is necessary to have an __init__.py file in every directory for packages to be automatically found.

Packages are only recognized if they include an __init__.py file

UPD: If you want to use implicit namespace packages without __init__.py you just have to use find_namespace_packages() instead

Docs

I would say that one should omit the __init__.py only if one wants to have the implicit namespace package. If you don’t know what it means, you probably don’t want it and therefore you should continue to use the __init__.py even in Python 3.