Aahz wrote: > On Tue, Jan 20, 2004, Batista, Facundo wrote: > >>I don't use packages, but when I read the tutorial first time, I wondered >>why, if the packages appeared to solve a 'pack into a directory' problem, >>the names were joined with '.' instead of '/'. Later I found some other uses >>to the 'unix path' notation. >> >>For example: >> >>- Module inside a package: import package/module >> >>- Relative import: import ../../otherpack/webmodules/somemodule > > > Haven't seen any support for this; in the absence of support, I'll have > to assume that it's a non-starter. It has some appeal to me, as when we use the standard 'dot' notation, Python is invoking some magic on our behalf to search several 'standard' locations (the Python standard library, site-packages, sys.path, current directory(?) are the locations I am aware of). I believe the proposal is to drop the current directory from that list of locations searched, which leaves the unresolved question of how to spell an explicit request for a relative import. Since it _is_ the file system heirarchy we're traversing in a relative import, why _not_ use a Unix-style relative path? So: from ./mypy import stuff from ../mypkg2/mypy2 import other_stuff (I don't see any reason to change the proposal to require the 'from ... import ...' arrangement when doing relative imports) To import an entire module from the current directory, it may be enough to allow a trailing slash: from ./ import mypy Certainly, it would be easy to understand - and the slash characters would hopefully be enough to signal the import machinery that a relative import is being requested. Regards, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | Brisbane, Australia Email: ncoghlan at email.com | Mobile: +61 409 573 268
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