[Python-ideas] Packages and Import
jcarlson at uci.edu
Sun Feb 11 19:55:33 CET 2007
"Brett Cannon" <brett at python.org> wrote:
> On 2/11/07, Josiah Carlson <jcarlson at uci.edu> wrote:
> > Josiah Carlson <jcarlson at uci.edu> wrote:
> > > Anyways...I hear where you are coming from with your statements of 'if
> > > __name__ could be anything, and we could train people to use ismain(),
> > > then all of this relative import stuff could *just work*'. It would
> > > require inserting a bunch of (fake?) packages in valid Python name
> > > parent paths (just in case people want to do cousin, etc., imports from
> > > __main__).
> > >
> > > You have convinced me.
> > And in that vein, I have implemented a bit of code that mangles the
> > __name__ of the __main__ module, sets up pseudo-packages for parent
> > paths with valid Python names, imports __init__.py modules in ancestor
> > packages, adds an ismain() function to builtins, etc.
> > It allows for crazy things like...
> > from ..uncle import cousin
> > from ..parent import sibling
> > #the above equivalent to:
> > from . import sibling
> > from .sibling import nephew
> > ...all executed within the __main__ module (which gets a new __name__).
> > Even better, it works with vanilla Python 2.5, and doesn't even require
> > an import hook.
> > The only unfortunate thing is that because you cannot predict how far up
> > the tree relative imports go, you cannot know how far up the paths one
> > should go in creating the ancestral packages. My current (simple)
> > implementation goes as far up as the root, or the parent of the deepest
> > path with an __init__.py[cw] .
> Just to make sure that I understand this correctly, __name__ is set to
> __main__ for the module that is being executed. Then other modules in
> the package are also called __main__, but with the proper dots and
> such to resolve to the proper depth in the package?
No. Say, for example, that you had a tree like the following.
Also say that run.py was run from the command line, and the relative
import code that I have written gets executed. The following assumes
that at least a "dummy" module is inserted into sys.modules['__main__']
1) A fake package called 'pk1' with __path__ == ['../pk1'] is inserted
2) 'pk1.pk2' is imported as per package rules (__init__.py is executed),
and gets a __path__ == ['../pk1/pk2/'] .
3) 'pk1.pk2.pk3' is imported as per package rules (__init__.py is
executed), and gets a __path__ == ['../pk1/pk2/pk3'] .
4) We fetch sys.packages['__main__'], give it a new __name__ of
'pk1.pk2.pk3.__main__', but don't give it a path. Also insert the
module into sys.modules['pk1.pk2.pk3.__main__'].
5) Add ismain() to builtins.
6) The remainder of run.py is executed.
> > If you are curious, I can send you a copy off-list.
> I have way too much on my plate right now to dive into it right now,
> but I assume the patch is either against runpy or my import code?
No. It's actually a standalone module. When imported (presumably from
__main__ as the first thing it does), it performs the mangling,
importing, etc. I'm sure I could modify runpy to do all of this, but
only if alter_sys was True.
I could probably do the same with your import code, where can I find it?
One reason *not* to do the __main__..uncle.cousin namings is that it is
not clear how one should go about removing those __main__ trailing dots
without examining __main__'s __file__ all the time, especially with
non-filesystem imports with nonsensical __file__.
More information about the Python-ideas