Relative Imports, why the hell is it so hard?

Terry Reedy tjreedy at
Tue Mar 31 20:50:14 CEST 2009

Kay Schluehr wrote:
> On 31 Mrz., 18:48, s4g <rafals... at> wrote:

> This and similar solutions ( see Istvan Alberts ) point me to a
> fundamental problem of the current import architecture. Suppose you
> really want to run a module as a script without a prior import from a
> module path:
> ...A\B\C> python
> then the current working directory C is added to sys.path which means
> that the module finder searches in C but C isn't a known package.
> There is no C package in sys.modules even if the C directory is
> "declared" as a package by placing an file in it. Same
> goes of course with B and A.

Nothing is added to sys.modules, except the __main__ module, unless 
imported (which so are on startup).

> Although the ceremony has been performed
> basically correct the interpreter god is not pacified and doesn't
> respond.

But the import 'ceremony' has not been performed.

> But why not? Because it looks up for *living* imported
> packages in the module cache ( in sys.modules ).
> I don't think there is any particular design idea behind it. The
> module cache is just a simple flat dictionary; a no-brainer to
> implement and efficient for look ups.

This all dates to the time before packages and imports from zip files 
and such.

 > But it counteracts a domain model.

What is that?

> All you are left with is those Finders, Loaders and Importers
> in Brett Cannons importlib. Everything remains deeply mysterious and I
> don't wonder that it took long for him to work this out.

And your proposal is?


More information about the Python-list mailing list