At 05:15 PM 5/17/04 +0200, M.-A. Lemburg wrote: >Phillip J. Eby wrote: >>>>>I have a few questions about the PEP 328 which I'd like discussed: >>>>> >>>>>* Why do we absolutely need to change the current scheme >>>>> of 'local, then absolute' for name resolution ? >>>> >>>>Because there's no way to override the current scheme without calling >>>>__import__ directly. >>> >>> >>>Are you saying that you are not going to change the default __import__() >>>implementation, only the way it is called ? (I wonder how you'll >>>enforce the 'absolute only' strategy then) >>Huh? You lost me. What 'absolute only'? There's "from .x import y" >>still, and that's relative. >>As far as I know, nothing about __import__ is changing, only the spelling >>of import statements. > >If "import os" is supposed to map to an absolute import >you will have to change the semantics of __import__ because >simply passing "os" to that API is going to implement the >standard 'local, then absolute' import scheme. As I believe I mentioned before, the relevant import opcodes will simply pass a different set of parameters to __import__. Supplying a different "globals" dictionary suffices to implement an absolute import.
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