I was trying to approximate the `.launch` extension that we had in ROS 1 (which would have contained XML). When people wanted to compose a launch file out of XML files they would use `.xml` for the parts, indicating that the `.launch` files were actually viable entry points for launching.
The `.launch.py` was a way to imply it was both an entry point and clue editors to the markup of the contents. It is currently completely optional and is only considered with tab-completion.
I had imagined that people who wanted to unit test their python code used in launch files would place testable code in `.py` files and have a single `.launch.py` that uses the code in the `.py` files to return the launch description. I have also imagined that if you wanted to do an integration test where you actually instantiate the launch file for introspection or launching you'd do that with the `launch` API (which handles imports for you).
For general purpose composition (a launch file including another launch file) that can (and probably should be) done with the `IncludeLaunchDescription` action in launch.
To alleviate other use cases we could expose the `importlib` logic used in launch itself to handle the `.launch.py` suffix.
That all being said, while I prefer the aesthetics of `.launch.py`, I would be fine with canonicalizing `_launch.py` or something else and I'm interested in hearing from others on the topic.
---
[Visit Topic](
https://discourse.ros.org/t/questioning-the-launch-py-file-extension/6352/2) or reply to this email to respond.
If you do not want to receive messages from ros-users please use the unsubscribe link below. If you use the one above, you will stop all of ros-users from receiving updates.
______________________________________________________________________________
ros-users mailing list
ros-users@lists.ros.org
http://lists.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-users
Unsubscribe: <
http://lists.ros.org/mailman//options/ros-users>
(text/plain)