On Mon, Apr 12, 2004, Jeremy Hylton wrote: > On Mon, 2004-04-12 at 10:06, Barry Warsaw wrote: >> >> 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). Right. And my point is that there's at least one corner case where this will have definite drawbacks. > I think they belong in every module. A future statement is a compiler > gimmick and modules are compiled separately, so each module ought to > have its own future statement. If not, the compiler (and human reader) > have no idea whether a future statement is in effect. Obviously, the > compiler and the reader could learn about some change to import > semantics by studying context, but that's extra complexity I'd like to > avoid (particular in the case of the compiler). That's what I expected the reaction to be from others. Barry, if you want your change, lobby Guido. ;-) -- Aahz (aahz at pythoncraft.com) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/ Why is this newsgroup different from all other newsgroups?
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