On Feb 18, 2011, at 12:36 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:

>It says they are "highly discouraged" because "absolute imports are
>more portable and usually more readable", but now that people have had
>a chance to use explicit relative imports, do people still believe
>this? I mean if we truly believed this then why did we add the syntax?
>I know I have used it and love it, let alone that I don't buy the
>portability argument.

I agree with others that explicit relative imports should still be
discouraged.  I've run into problems with them where imports break under some
situations.  I don't remember the details, but I think it was when running
unittests or under -m or something.  Yeah, I should file a bug next time I run
into it.