[Import-sig] Re: Proposal for a modified import mechanism.

Prabhu Ramachandran prabhu at aero.iitm.ernet.in
Sun Nov 11 09:08:18 CET 2001

>>>>> "GMcM" == Gordon McMillan <gmcm at hypernet.com> writes:

[snipped off other issues raised]

    >> The current runtime overhead isn't so bad.

    GMcM> Under anything near normal usage, no - packages structures
    GMcM> are nearly always shallow. It wouldn't be much work to
    GMcM> construct a case where time spent in import doubled,
    GMcM> however.

But that can be said of almost anything.  A nicer question to ask is
-- for most circumstances (99%) is the import mechanism fast enough?

    GMcM> When the "try relative, then try absolute" strategy was
    GMcM> introduced with packages, it added insignificant
    GMcM> overhead. It's not so insignificant now. When (and if) the
    GMcM> standard library moves to a package structure, it's possilbe
    GMcM> it will be seen as a burden.

Yes, which is why maybe adding an 'rimport' keyword (which you
suggested) would be a more conservative option?


More information about the Python-list mailing list