On Sun, 2004-04-11 at 13:23, Aahz wrote: > On Sun, Apr 11, 2004, Barry Warsaw wrote: > > > > This is one of the reasons I suggested early on that there be a way to > > spell -- at the package level by the package developer -- "I'm using > > absolute imports here". Without that spelling, the package would still > > use the old semantics, however broken they are <wink>. > > > > E.g. if I could put in email/__init__.py something like: > > > > from __future__ import i_am_absolutely_resolved_about_my_imports > > > > then I'd expect PEP 328 semantics in package email and all subpackages. > > Older packages wouldn't have this declaration and would operate under > > the old rules. (I still don't have any need for relative imports. ;) > > Anyone else favor having the ``__future__`` directive apply to the > package and all its subpackages? (Currently it follows the standard > rules of applying only to each module.) Note that this would make it > impossible to do what some people want, where a package becomes another > package's subpackage, if the new subpackage relies on relative imports > under the old rules. Would that be any different than if modules of the subpackage add the __future__ in them? I'm envisioning semantics such that a __future__ in an __init__.py was the same as if that __future__ was explicitly added to every module (i.e. it's a convenience). -Barry
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4