[Python-ideas] Packages and Import

[Josiah Carlson]

"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.

    .../
        pk1/
            pk2/
                __init__.py
                pk3/
                    __init__.py
                    run.py

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
into sys.modules.
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__.


 - Josiah