On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 2:12 PM, Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> wrote:

Brendan Moloney wrote:

dag.odenhall@gmail.com wrote:

I like this idea, except it's inconsistent with from-import-star, the
latter which does *not* get you sub-packages or modules.

Georg Brandl [g.brandl@gmx.net] wrote:

And that's for a reason: it's not easy (I think it's even impossible, because
for example individual submodules can change __path__) to determine all
importable submodules of a package.

So ``import pkg.*`` would not have any behavior other than ``import pkg``.

When I said all _public_ sub-packages and modules I was referring to those

> listed in the __all__ attribute of 'pkg'. Thus it would behave in the exact
> same way as from-import-star except you don't pollute the current namespace.

I'm not catching the vision -- could you put together a short example that would illustrate?

He's saying that the package would be imported like normal. Then all "public" sub-modules of the package would automatically imported and bound to the namespace of the object that resulted from the import of the package. The trickery is that __all__ in the __init__.py would change meaning somewhat, and, do you bind the submodules into the package's module object or something else?

If you have a list of the submodules you want imported then you can already accomplish this:

import parent

for mod in parent.__all_submodules__:

__import__("parent.{}".format(mod))

Of course, this does not bind the submodules to the namespace of the package module, but I suppose you could try that with one more step. I am not sure of the specific import mechanism with regards to name binding, but that would seem to be a conflict with the way imported names for submodules are bound.

-eric

~Ethan~
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list
Python-ideas@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas