M.-A. Lemburg wrote: > Guido van Rossum wrote: > ... >> As long as it's clear that this is a compatibility requirement only I >> think it's a good idea to support this way of developing apps (even >> though I think that clever sys.path manipulation can probably get >> around it, it's not worth breaking existing approaches). All new apps >> should however use relative imports to reference their own code, so >> the problem won't be repeated in the future. > > > I have my doubts that this is going to happen. > > People are more likely going to make all imports absolute (like > they already do in Java and other languages) - which > is good, since it makes reading code much easier and allows for > writing packages which are compatible to older Python version, > but it also prevent developing applications using the above > approach. > > I also don't think that extension writers will care enough to > make their packages fully relocateable by using relative > imports all over - these are hard to read and don't buy > the developer of the extension anything. I find explicit relative imports easier to read, as it reduces the noise level. I like the fact that local imports look different from non-local ones. Jim -- Jim Fulton mailto:jim at zope.com Python Powered! CTO (540) 361-1714 http://www.python.org Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org
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