> > I think this addresses all the concerns I've seen brought up in this > > thread so far > > No, it doesn't address my concern that scan-upwards semantics > should be the default, in the sense of being what should be > used in the absence of a reason to do otherwise, and should > therefore have the most straightforward syntax. It doesn't address that becaseu I don't want that to be the default. I'm considering adding syntax for relative imports so that the default import syntax can be absolute only, rather than ambiguous. IMO scan-upwards as the default is worse than ambiguous. > Also, you don't seem to have anything for the explicitly-relative > case, which might not be strictly necessary, but I think > I'd feel more comfortable if it were available somehow. That's why I originally proposed single, double, triple (etc.) leading dots. > Thinking about the double_underscore names, it might not > be so bad if they were a bit shorter, e.g. I *really* don't like using double-underscore names here unless it was for extremely uncommon cases. There are two proposals that I can live with: my original proposal with the leading dots counting the number of levels up, or the triple-dot proposal with scan-up semantics. In both cases, the default semantics would switch to absolute for Python 3.0. I cannot accept scan-up as default, and I don't think we can come up with two separate clearly distinguishable non-default syntaxes to separate scan-up and explicit relative semantics, so you have to pick one there. --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
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