Alternative Approach to Relative Imports
Hi everybody, I'm currently busy converting my code to use mx.DateTime instead of just DateTime and must say that this is a real pain. Now instead of reviving the __ discussion I'd like to turn to what could be a workable compromise (I think Jim proposed something along these lines already and there was similar code in ni.py). The proposal is really only an addition to the lookup scheme used by the importer. No additional syntax is involved and best of all, it is backward compatible... The current lookup does the following if you want to import a module E from module A.B.C.D: 1. check A.B.C.E 2. check E 3. fail Now instead of failing we could add a lookup method that walks up the package structure: 3. check A.B.E 4. check A.E [5. check E -- already done] 6. fail so that the complete scheme looks like this: 1. check A.B.C.E 2. check E 3. check A.B.E 4. check A.E [5. check E -- already done] 6. fail That way I could leave intra-mx-package imports untouched and still have the convenience of achieving the goal of making my mx subpackages work in the mx context *plus* in the top-level context thus allowing a backward compatible and flexible setup for mx* users. Note that the scheme finds exactly the same modules it did previously, plus perhaps some more (which is intended), and it does not involve any search path hacks. How is that for a compromise ? [Ducking for cover ;-)] -- Marc-Andre Lemburg ______________________________________________________________________ Y2000: 100 days left Business: http://www.lemburg.com/ Python Pages: http://www.lemburg.com/python/
[M.-A. Lemburg]
The current lookup does the following if you want to import a module E from module A.B.C.D:
1. check A.B.C.E 2. check E 3. fail
Now instead of failing we could add a lookup method that walks up the package structure:
3. check A.B.E 4. check A.E [5. check E -- already done] 6. fail
so that the complete scheme looks like this:
1. check A.B.C.E 2. check E 3. check A.B.E 4. check A.E [5. check E -- already done] 6. fail
That way I could leave intra-mx-package imports untouched and still have the convenience of achieving the goal of making my mx subpackages work in the mx context *plus* in the top-level context thus allowing a backward compatible and flexible setup for mx* users.
Comment 1: You're just giving yourself headaches by allowing your users to install mx in anything other than the prescribed manner. Comment 2: I generally like this scheme, but think (for consistency and confusion-reduction) that it should go straight up the tree, instead of checking the root second. - Gordon
Gordon McMillan wrote:
[M.-A. Lemburg]
The current lookup does the following if you want to import a module E from module A.B.C.D:
1. check A.B.C.E 2. check E 3. fail
Now instead of failing we could add a lookup method that walks up the package structure:
3. check A.B.E 4. check A.E [5. check E -- already done] 6. fail
so that the complete scheme looks like this:
1. check A.B.C.E 2. check E 3. check A.B.E 4. check A.E [5. check E -- already done] 6. fail
That way I could leave intra-mx-package imports untouched and still have the convenience of achieving the goal of making my mx subpackages work in the mx context *plus* in the top-level context thus allowing a backward compatible and flexible setup for mx* users.
Comment 1: You're just giving yourself headaches by allowing your users to install mx in anything other than the prescribed manner.
Actually, I'm trying to provide them a way to smoothly switch from the old setup to the new one. This includes myself, of course ;-).
Comment 2: I generally like this scheme, but think (for consistency and confusion-reduction) that it should go straight up the tree, instead of checking the root second.
That would probably break code because the search could find some other module having the same name as a top-level one. OTOH, perhaps that situation is not all the common to fear too much about it. Walking up all the way would certainly be easier to explain to a 12-year old ;-) -- Marc-Andre Lemburg ______________________________________________________________________ Y2000: 100 days left Business: http://www.lemburg.com/ Python Pages: http://www.lemburg.com/python/
Comment 2: I generally like this scheme, but think (for consistency and confusion-reduction) that it should go straight up the tree, instead of checking the root second.
That would probably break code because the search could find some other module having the same name as a top-level one. OTOH, perhaps that situation is not all the common to fear too much about it.
Walking up all the way would certainly be easier to explain to a 12-year old ;-)
Yes, please. Do the long-term understandable thing here. I expect not too many packages have defined subpackages (or submodules) whose name conflicts with a standard library module, so you ought to be pretty safe here! --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
Guido van Rossum wrote:
Comment 2: I generally like this scheme, but think (for consistency and confusion-reduction) that it should go straight up the tree, instead of checking the root second.
That would probably break code because the search could find some other module having the same name as a top-level one. OTOH, perhaps that situation is not all the common to fear too much about it.
Walking up all the way would certainly be easier to explain to a 12-year old ;-)
Yes, please. Do the long-term understandable thing here. I expect not too many packages have defined subpackages (or submodules) whose name conflicts with a standard library module, so you ought to be pretty safe here!
Walking straight up the tree is my preference. I think it is very natural. Jim -- Jim Fulton mailto:jim@digicool.com Python Powered! Technical Director (888) 344-4332 http://www.python.org Digital Creations http://www.digicool.com http://www.zope.org Under US Code Title 47, Sec.227(b)(1)(C), Sec.227(a)(2)(B) This email address may not be added to any commercial mail list with out my permission. Violation of my privacy with advertising or SPAM will result in a suit for a MINIMUM of $500 damages/incident, $1500 for repeats.
On 22 September 1999, Guido van Rossum said:
Yes, please. Do the long-term understandable thing here. I expect not too many packages have defined subpackages (or submodules) whose name conflicts with a standard library module, so you ought to be pretty safe here!
Especially since doing so doesn't work: for example, the distutils.errors module started life as distutils.exceptions. That changed pretty quickly, once I realized why putting import exceptions into other distutils modules didn't work -- obviously it didn't find my distutils.exceptions. Arguably I should have used an absolute import, but what the heck. Greg -- Greg Ward - software developer gward@cnri.reston.va.us Corporation for National Research Initiatives 1895 Preston White Drive voice: +1-703-620-8990 Reston, Virginia, USA 20191-5434 fax: +1-703-620-0913
Greg Ward wrote:
On 22 September 1999, Guido van Rossum said:
Yes, please. Do the long-term understandable thing here. I expect not too many packages have defined subpackages (or submodules) whose name conflicts with a standard library module, so you ought to be pretty safe here!
Especially since doing so doesn't work: for example, the distutils.errors module started life as distutils.exceptions. That changed pretty quickly, once I realized why putting
import exceptions
into other distutils modules didn't work -- obviously it didn't find my distutils.exceptions. Arguably I should have used an absolute import, but what the heck.
Wow, so many positive answers -- not bad after that last round of relative imports ;-) Ok, then I'll use the walk-me-up approach. That'll be coded into a PathImporter class I'm writing for imputil which will try to mimic the standard behaviour as much as possible (to be released in a few weeks after my vacation). -- Marc-Andre Lemburg ______________________________________________________________________ Y2000: 100 days left Business: http://www.lemburg.com/ Python Pages: http://www.lemburg.com/python/
Mark Hammond wrote:
try to mimic the standard behaviour as much as possible (to be released in a few weeks after my vacation).
no no Marc - you should know the rules by now - you release it mere hours _before_ your vacation :-) Enjoy!
Ya, well ;-) I'll try my best... I already have something working but it doesn't do the win32 + mac magic yet because that'll require some additions to the builtin imp module. Also, I found that it is rather slow when compared to the builtin one. Caches can speed this up a little, but I still haven't achieved the same performance. BTW, while hacking along I found a few things that might be worth discussing w/r to a general import hook scheme: Currently, the imputil apporach uses a simple chaining technique. Unfortunately, it doesn't allow inspecting the chain for already loaded hooks, so the same type of hook could be loaded more than once. Also, there are at least two types of hooks: 1. hooks that redirect the import to some other data source 2. hooks that modify the way modules are searched Since the first variant may well also be suited to used by the second, the simple chaining method probably won't be powerful enough to handle it. I think what we really need is a set of register/deregister APIs + some framework to differentiate between the two hook types (and possibly other variants). -- Marc-Andre Lemburg ______________________________________________________________________ Y2000: 98 days left Business: http://www.lemburg.com/ Python Pages: http://www.lemburg.com/python/
M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
BTW, while hacking along I found a few things that might be worth discussing w/r to a general import hook scheme:
Currently, the imputil apporach uses a simple chaining technique. Unfortunately, it doesn't allow inspecting the chain for already loaded hooks, so the same type of hook could be loaded more than once.
Also, there are at least two types of hooks:
1. hooks that redirect the import to some other data source
2. hooks that modify the way modules are searched
Since the first variant may well also be suited to used by the second, the simple chaining method probably won't be powerful enough to handle it.
I think what we really need is a set of register/deregister APIs + some framework to differentiate between the two hook types (and possibly other variants).
Another quirk that I think needs fixing: When I issues an import: import mx.DateTime the whole import is handled by the importer installed at the start of the import. It is not possible to install a different importer e.g. in mx/__init__.py to handle the rest of the import (in this case the import of subpackage DateTime). I think that the importer should honor the __importer__ function (this is set by imputil) if present to let it continue the import of subsequent elements in the dotted name. Aside: Perhaps this is getting too technical for this list... should I start an egroups mailing list for defining a new and more flexible import mechanism ? -- Marc-Andre Lemburg ______________________________________________________________________ Y2000: 98 days left Business: http://www.lemburg.com/ Python Pages: http://www.lemburg.com/python/
M.-A. Lemburg wrote: [msg 1]
Currently, the imputil apporach uses a simple chaining technique. Unfortunately, it doesn't allow inspecting the chain for already loaded hooks, so the same type of hook could be loaded more than once.
I was hoping Greg would jump in, but since he hasn't - You're associating the hook with the strategy. That's the old style. The imputil style is to associate the hook with the actual stuff being managed. The strategy is a property of the hook.
Also, there are at least two types of hooks:
1. hooks that redirect the import to some other data source
2. hooks that modify the way modules are searched
Since the first variant may well also be suited to used by the second, the simple chaining method probably won't be powerful enough to handle it.
The top level question is "is it mine to import?". Greg provides a framework that makes it easy to use alternate data sources, and alternate ways of finding things but that's not really the key thing. You're a "good" importer if you can (when appropriate) way "no it's not mine" efficiently. [msg 2]
Another quirk that I think needs fixing:
When I issues an import:
import mx.DateTime
the whole import is handled by the importer installed at the start of the import. It is not possible to install a different importer e.g. in mx/__init__.py to handle the rest of the import (in this case the import of subpackage DateTime). I think that the importer should honor the __importer__ function (this is set by imputil) if present to let it continue the import of subsequent elements in the dotted name.
Sure you can. Your first importer is the "mx" importer. It has a dict of sub-importers. When mx/DateTime/__init__.py runs, it puts itself into that dict. The importer chain is now a tree. This means, I think, that a "general" relative-path importer (ie, one that uses the default PYTHONPATH strategy), should be careful to install itself as the penultimate importer in the chain, (ie, the last before __builtin__.imp). But putting a relative-path search strategy into the "mx" importer is fine if it can quickly determine that the target is / is not a valid name in the "mx" namespace. - Gordon
Gordon McMillan wrote:
M.-A. Lemburg wrote: [msg 1]
Currently, the imputil apporach uses a simple chaining technique. Unfortunately, it doesn't allow inspecting the chain for already loaded hooks, so the same type of hook could be loaded more than once.
I was hoping Greg would jump in, but since he hasn't -
You're associating the hook with the strategy. That's the old style. The imputil style is to associate the hook with the actual stuff being managed. The strategy is a property of the hook.
I know, but there still is no way to query what kind of hooks are already loaded and what is worse, you cannot unload or reorder them. I'd suggest using a list of hooks which are then traversed in the order they appear in the list, e.g. __importers__ = [DirectoryImporter('/usr/local/lib/python1.5'), ArchiveImporter('/usr/local/lib/app.pyz'), WebImporter('http://www.python.org/pylib/'), PathImporter(('~/bin','~/lib'))] This also has the advantage of being able to easily query the importers during debugging and eliminates the need to have a predefined attribute naming scheme (such as the one imputil uses).
Also, there are at least two types of hooks:
1. hooks that redirect the import to some other data source
2. hooks that modify the way modules are searched
Since the first variant may well also be suited to used by the second, the simple chaining method probably won't be powerful enough to handle it.
The top level question is "is it mine to import?". Greg provides a framework that makes it easy to use alternate data sources, and alternate ways of finding things but that's not really the key thing. You're a "good" importer if you can (when appropriate) way "no it's not mine" efficiently.
It does a good job at this, but doesn't really separate lookup and loading of code too well. Everything is packaged into one single method (.get_code()) which is not always flexible enough, e.g. it wasn't possible to implement the walk-up-the-dotted-name scheme using modifications to .get_code() alone. Also, I can see many uses where you combine a lookup hook (e.g. for loading modules across the web) with a filtering hook (e.g. one which checks a module signature). This should go into the framework as well, IMHO... e.g. by having two methods .find_code() and .make_module() (like the builtin importer).
[msg 2]
Another quirk that I think needs fixing:
When I issues an import:
import mx.DateTime
the whole import is handled by the importer installed at the start of the import. It is not possible to install a different importer e.g. in mx/__init__.py to handle the rest of the import (in this case the import of subpackage DateTime). I think that the importer should honor the __importer__ function (this is set by imputil) if present to let it continue the import of subsequent elements in the dotted name.
Sure you can. Your first importer is the "mx" importer. It has a dict of sub-importers. When mx/DateTime/__init__.py runs, it puts itself into that dict. The importer chain is now a tree.
The problem is that the special importer has to be installed *prior* to doing the mx.DateTime import, because otherwise the importer will not take control over the DateTime subpackage (unless I tell it to do so explicitly, which is not really what I want to have to do).
This means, I think, that a "general" relative-path importer (ie, one that uses the default PYTHONPATH strategy), should be careful to install itself as the penultimate importer in the chain, (ie, the last before __builtin__.imp). But putting a relative-path search strategy into the "mx" importer is fine if it can quickly determine that the target is / is not a valid name in the "mx" namespace.
Exactly... and this brings us back to the importer list I mentioned above. -- Marc-Andre Lemburg ______________________________________________________________________ Y2000: 98 days left Business: http://www.lemburg.com/ Python Pages: http://www.lemburg.com/python/
"M.-A. Lemburg" wrote:
I know, but there still is no way to query what kind of hooks are already loaded and what is worse, you cannot unload or reorder them.
I think this is a valid point. I am interested in hooks to read modules from a file archive. If you are a developer, it is necessary to turn this hook OFF, so that you can revert to the usual directory tree where your current source is. I am solving this by leaving a global variable "Importer" in sitecustomize, and calling sitecustomize.Importer.enable(0). This works, but it might be useful if imputil could de-install a hook as well as install it. Jim Ahlstrom
On Wed, 29 Sep 1999, James C. Ahlstrom wrote:
"M.-A. Lemburg" wrote:
I know, but there still is no way to query what kind of hooks are already loaded and what is worse, you cannot unload or reorder them.
I think this is a valid point. I am interested in hooks to read modules from a file archive. If you are a developer, it is necessary to turn this hook OFF, so that you can revert to the usual directory tree where your current source is.
I am solving this by leaving a global variable "Importer" in sitecustomize, and calling sitecustomize.Importer.enable(0). This works, but it might be useful if imputil could de-install a hook as well as install it.
It was a design point to not provide this functionality. It is pretty difficult to unhook the importers from the chain. I specifically said, "well... when you alter the import behavior, then it will stay that way." I figured this was entirely safe since an Importer could have an enable/disable flag like you implemented, or my (theoretical) Import Manager could pull an Importer out of its list that it was managing. I'm not sure that we want an Import Manager to always be installed in the hooks, but it could be a good idea to have a standard manager in the library somewhere (which Importers could state a dependency upon its installation). Cheers, -g -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Greg Stein wrote:
It was a design point to not provide this functionality. It is pretty difficult to unhook the importers from the chain. I specifically said, "well... when you alter the import behavior, then it will stay that way."
I figured this was entirely safe since an Importer could have an enable/disable flag like you implemented, or my (theoretical) Import Manager could pull an Importer out of its list that it was managing.
I think my design of leaving a global "Importer" instance variable in imputil is a bit lame. Each importer is a class instance, but I don't see a list of importers in imputil. Suppose impuil kept a list of installed importers imputil.ImporterList[]. Then to access an importer I have installed, I can write: for im in imputil.ImporterList: if isinstance(im, MyImporter): im.enable(0) It would not be necessary to dis-install an importer, imputil would just undertake to keep a list of installed importers, and if someone wanted to control their installed importers, they would use the list. I do not feel too strongly about this. Maybe it is a good idea. What do you think? I can just use my global variable I guess. Jim Ahlstrom
On Mon, 27 Sep 1999, Gordon McMillan wrote:
M.-A. Lemburg wrote: [msg 1]
Currently, the imputil apporach uses a simple chaining technique. Unfortunately, it doesn't allow inspecting the chain for already loaded hooks, so the same type of hook could be loaded more than once.
I was hoping Greg would jump in, but since he hasn't -
I'm in a middle of a move back to CA. Unpacking now...
You're associating the hook with the strategy. That's the old style. The imputil style is to associate the hook with the actual stuff being managed. The strategy is a property of the hook.
Quite true. The chaining is simply an artifact of what has been installed as the import hook. I've always envisioned the potential for a "Importer Manager" that installs just like any other hook, but provides higher-level functions for importers to install themselves. The manager simply delegates the get_code() function to the sub-importers. Of course, the manager could use whatever technique to improve the speed of Importer selection. With respect to speed, I think the main point is to realize that the imputil technique is not inherently slow. It just depends on how you design your Importer subclasses -- do you install one or a hundred Importers? The imputil scheme is more about simplifying how people hook into the process (implement get_code() rather than a load/import combo). It also provides a simple capability (chaining) to allow *multiple* hooks to be installed.
Also, there are at least two types of hooks:
1. hooks that redirect the import to some other data source
2. hooks that modify the way modules are searched
Just one way -- your second is a variant of the first. "other data source" is a functional superset which includes searching. Importers don't simply alter searching -- they must perform the actual import (from wherever). This is the big change in mindset from the "ihooks" method -- find it and import it on the spot. The net effect is an Importer either imports a module or it doesn't (and the system can fallback to try another Importer). [ one the examples that people always like to specify was importing via URL which was actually quite difficult to use in the old scheme -- how do you separate an HTTP GET into a find/load step? Effectively, you had to double-fetch, or you had to place the whole module (which you retrieved during the find step) into your context for passing to the load. The other issue was the distinct semantics also implied that you could separate the functions -- I believe that to be quite unnecessary functionality. ]
Since the first variant may well also be suited to used by the second, the simple chaining method probably won't be powerful enough to handle it.
The top level question is "is it mine to import?". Greg provides a framework that makes it easy to use alternate data sources, and alternate ways of finding things but that's not really the key thing. You're a "good" importer if you can (when appropriate) way "no it's not mine" efficiently.
Very true!
[msg 2]
Another quirk that I think needs fixing:
When I issues an import:
import mx.DateTime
the whole import is handled by the importer installed at the start of the import. It is not possible to install a different importer e.g. in mx/__init__.py to handle the rest of the import (in this case the import of subpackage DateTime). I think that the importer should honor the __importer__ function (this is set by imputil) if present to let it continue the import of subsequent elements in the dotted name.
Sure you can. Your first importer is the "mx" importer. It has a dict of sub-importers. When mx/DateTime/__init__.py runs, it puts itself into that dict. The importer chain is now a tree.
Gordon's on top of it here... :-) Yes, it is simply a matter of perspective on the import process. An importer does not have to be a static entity. It also can be much more than a way to search a path... it can be highly dynamic and flexible. Whatever you like. Just implement get_code() to map a module "mx.DateTime" to a code/module object. There are a bazillion ways to do that :-)
This means, I think, that a "general" relative-path importer (ie, one that uses the default PYTHONPATH strategy), should be careful to install itself as the penultimate importer in the chain, (ie, the last before __builtin__.imp). But putting a relative-path search strategy into the "mx" importer is fine if it can quickly determine that the target is / is not a valid name in the "mx" namespace.
Part of the Importer work was done to satisfy importing modules from the COM+ namespace. I wanted to be able to say "import COM.foo.bar". The importer would handle all "COM." imports and delegate the "foo.bar" to the underlying Python/COM framework. In other words... yes, the Importer scheme should work *very* well for the "whatever...." type of module namespace. Cheers, -g -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Greg Stein wrote:
On Mon, 27 Sep 1999, Gordon McMillan wrote:
Currently, the imputil apporach uses a simple chaining technique. Unfortunately, it doesn't allow inspecting the chain for already loaded hooks, so the same type of hook could be loaded more than once. You're associating the hook with the strategy. That's the old
M.-A. Lemburg wrote: [msg 1] style. The imputil style is to associate the hook with the actual stuff being managed. The strategy is a property of the hook.
Quite true. The chaining is simply an artifact of what has been installed as the import hook. I've always envisioned the potential for a "Importer Manager" that installs just like any other hook, but provides higher-level functions for importers to install themselves. The manager simply delegates the get_code() function to the sub-importers. Of course, the manager could use whatever technique to improve the speed of Importer selection.
With respect to speed, I think the main point is to realize that the imputil technique is not inherently slow. It just depends on how you design your Importer subclasses -- do you install one or a hundred Importers?
The imputil scheme is more about simplifying how people hook into the process (implement get_code() rather than a load/import combo). It also provides a simple capability (chaining) to allow *multiple* hooks to be installed.
As I wrote in my reply to Gordon, this setup has some drawbacks which an "Import Manager" could easily solve, e.g. by using a list of importers.
Also, there are at least two types of hooks:
1. hooks that redirect the import to some other data source
2. hooks that modify the way modules are searched
Just one way -- your second is a variant of the first. "other data source" is a functional superset which includes searching. Importers don't simply alter searching -- they must perform the actual import (from wherever).
Yes, I was just argueing for two types of functionality, not the old scheme. E.g. the Import Manager could provide a set of filters which implement signature checks or know how to un-gzip code plus a set of lookup functions for scanning directories or zip archives. I would like the importers to take advantage of such functionality. Of course, all of this could be implemented in form of classes which the importers then use as mixin classes.
This is the big change in mindset from the "ihooks" method -- find it and import it on the spot. The net effect is an Importer either imports a module or it doesn't (and the system can fallback to try another Importer).
[ one the examples that people always like to specify was importing via URL which was actually quite difficult to use in the old scheme -- how do you separate an HTTP GET into a find/load step? Effectively, you had to double-fetch, or you had to place the whole module (which you retrieved during the find step) into your context for passing to the load. The other issue was the distinct semantics also implied that you could separate the functions -- I believe that to be quite unnecessary functionality. ]
.get_code() is fine for these kind of tasks, but there are some other areas (such as lazy imports) which work better using the split setup. This is pretty easy to implement btw, just have the Import Manager check whether the importer provides .get_code() and then have it revert to using .find_module(), .load_module() if it doesn't. The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of an Import Manager instead of the chaining approach.
Since the first variant may well also be suited to used by the second, the simple chaining method probably won't be powerful enough to handle it.
The top level question is "is it mine to import?". Greg provides a framework that makes it easy to use alternate data sources, and alternate ways of finding things but that's not really the key thing. You're a "good" importer if you can (when appropriate) way "no it's not mine" efficiently.
Very true!
[msg 2]
Another quirk that I think needs fixing:
When I issues an import:
import mx.DateTime
the whole import is handled by the importer installed at the start of the import. It is not possible to install a different importer e.g. in mx/__init__.py to handle the rest of the import (in this case the import of subpackage DateTime). I think that the importer should honor the __importer__ function (this is set by imputil) if present to let it continue the import of subsequent elements in the dotted name.
Sure you can. Your first importer is the "mx" importer. It has a dict of sub-importers. When mx/DateTime/__init__.py runs, it puts itself into that dict. The importer chain is now a tree.
Gordon's on top of it here... :-) Yes, it is simply a matter of perspective on the import process. An importer does not have to be a static entity. It also can be much more than a way to search a path... it can be highly dynamic and flexible. Whatever you like. Just implement get_code() to map a module "mx.DateTime" to a code/module object. There are a bazillion ways to do that :-)
Except that they don't work due to the fact that the builtin importer is not recursively using __import__ for the imports. An Import Manager would help with this too :-)
This means, I think, that a "general" relative-path importer (ie, one that uses the default PYTHONPATH strategy), should be careful to install itself as the penultimate importer in the chain, (ie, the last before __builtin__.imp). But putting a relative-path search strategy into the "mx" importer is fine if it can quickly determine that the target is / is not a valid name in the "mx" namespace.
Part of the Importer work was done to satisfy importing modules from the COM+ namespace. I wanted to be able to say "import COM.foo.bar". The importer would handle all "COM." imports and delegate the "foo.bar" to the underlying Python/COM framework.
In other words... yes, the Importer scheme should work *very* well for the "whatever...." type of module namespace.
-- Marc-Andre Lemburg ______________________________________________________________________ Y2000: 98 days left Business: http://www.lemburg.com/ Python Pages: http://www.lemburg.com/python/
participants (8)
-
Gordon McMillan -
Greg Stein -
Greg Ward -
Guido van Rossum -
James C. Ahlstrom -
Jim Fulton -
M.-A. Lemburg -
Mark Hammond