<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 9/18/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Greg Ewing</b> <<a href="mailto:greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz">greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Armin Rigo wrote:<br><br>> My (limited) understanding of the motivation for relative imports is<br>> that they are only here as a transitional feature. Fully-absolute<br>> imports are the official future.<br><br>
Guido does seem to have a dislike for relative imports,<br>but I don't really understand why. The usefulness of<br>being able to make a package self-contained and movable<br>to another place in the package hierarchy without hacking
<br>it seems self-evident to me.</blockquote><div><br>It is more of how relative imports used to be inherent and thus have no clear way to delineate that an import was being done using a relative path compared to an absolute one.
<br></div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">What's happening in Py3k? Will relative imports still<br>exist?</blockquote><div>
<br>Using the dot notation, yes they will exist in Py3K. <br></div><br>-Brett<br></div>