[Python-Dev] Draft: PEP for imports
ncoghlan at iinet.net.au
Thu Jan 22 00:26:31 EST 2004
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2004, Batista, Facundo wrote:
>>I don't use packages, but when I read the tutorial first time, I wondered
>>why, if the packages appeared to solve a 'pack into a directory' problem,
>>the names were joined with '.' instead of '/'. Later I found some other uses
>>to the 'unix path' notation.
>>- Module inside a package: import package/module
>>- Relative import: import ../../otherpack/webmodules/somemodule
> Haven't seen any support for this; in the absence of support, I'll have
> to assume that it's a non-starter.
It has some appeal to me, as when we use the standard 'dot' notation,
Python is invoking some magic on our behalf to search several 'standard'
locations (the Python standard library, site-packages, sys.path, current
directory(?) are the locations I am aware of).
I believe the proposal is to drop the current directory from that list
of locations searched, which leaves the unresolved question of how to
spell an explicit request for a relative import.
Since it _is_ the file system heirarchy we're traversing in a relative
import, why _not_ use a Unix-style relative path?
from ./mypy import stuff
from ../mypkg2/mypy2 import other_stuff
(I don't see any reason to change the proposal to require the 'from ...
import ...' arrangement when doing relative imports)
To import an entire module from the current directory, it may be enough
to allow a trailing slash:
from ./ import mypy
Certainly, it would be easy to understand - and the slash characters
would hopefully be enough to signal the import machinery that a relative
import is being requested.
Nick Coghlan | Brisbane, Australia
Email: ncoghlan at email.com | Mobile: +61 409 573 268
More information about the Python-Dev