I'm in general in favor of this. I will accept it once there is a
working implementation that is satisfactory.
Are we planning on supporting this in 2.6? It might break some 2.5
code that messes with modules and packages?
--Guido
On 7/10/07, Nick Coghlan
Brett Cannon wrote:
On 7/9/07, Nick Coghlan
wrote: Given the above limitations, I propose that we document the new attribute as follows:
"If the module global __package__ exists when executing an import statement, it is used to determine the base for relative imports, instead of the __name__ and __path__ attributes.
That's fine. __path__ actually isn't used to resolve relative imports into absolute ones anyway; it's used only as a substitute to sys.path when importing within a package.
I was referring to the fact that if __path__ is present (indicating a package), then the relative import is based directly on __name__, otherwise it is based on __name__.rpartition('.')[0].
Cheers, Nick.
-- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia --------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.boredomandlaziness.org _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/guido%40python.org
-- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)