Barry Warsaw wrote: > from __global__ import logging > > That would always import the global logging package. __global__ is the > optional "fake" global package and would only be used when you want to > explicitly skip any local imports. > > IIRC though, Guido never liked this proposal much. I repost it here on > the off chance that he's way too busy to read every message in this > thread <wink>. I agree with Guido. FWIW, I think imports should be absolute by default and that the statu quo is a mistake. The __global__ solution makes absolute imports too verbose, when they are usually in majority. I also don't see any advantage (but clear disadvantages) to mix relative and absolute imports with the same syntax, so PEP328 is the way to go. Third party packages have 3 releases to adapt, so I don't see the problem. You have to understand that with the __global__ solution, I would make all my imports use that syntax, and that's really verbose. Where I work, we are many working in a root package and right now it's a mess because any new module can hide global modules to modules in same directory, so modules names must be chosen accordingly (we even run a test at night to make sure no import is relative). And yes, I would want to be able to name modules in a package with names like "math", "os", "pickle", "test", "unittest", etc. and not wait Python 3 for that capability. I also expect more standard modules to be in packages in future. Regards, Nicolas
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