On Tue, 2003-12-16 at 05:32, Nick Coghlan wrote: > If absolute imports were to be the only type allowed, then it would seem > that the only possible location for naming conflicts is in the _first_ > element. True. > So if I wanted to use two different third party modules, both of which > have unfortunately chosen the same name for the top-level package, the > only way to let them co-exist is to redo _all_ of the imports in one or > the other of them. > > Whereas, if relative pathing is possible, I believe that all I have to > do is push them one level down in the package heirarchy (using distinct > names that I invent), and neither of them ever even knows about the > other's existence. I can get at both of them unambiguously, by using my > new top=level names, and neither package even knows that it is no longer > starting at the top of the import heirarchy. > > Or is there some other solution being proposed to this problem, and I > just haven't understood it? Has this ever happened to you in practice? It seems like the way out would be to start adopting a Java-like convention for package names. The problem with that in current Python is that you can't (easily) weave a package's contents from different locations in the file system. -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