Ethan Furman wrote:
> The strongest reason for not doing this is that it pollutes the current
> namespace, not that it obliterates the 'pkg' namespace.
Sorry, I phrased that badly. When I said "obliterates the 'pkg' namespace" I
was referring to dumping the 'pkg' namespace into the current name
Brendan Moloney wrote:
We all know that doing:
--> from pkg import *
is bad because it obliterates the 'pkg' namespace.
The strongest reason for not doing this is that it pollutes the current
namespace, not that it obliterates the 'pkg' namespace.
So why not allow something like:
--> imp
Brendan Moloney wrote:
We all know that doing:
from pkg import *
is bad because it obliterates the 'pkg' namespace. So why not allow something
like:
I don't quite know what you mean by obliterating the pkg namespace, but
if my guess is correct, you're wrong. One of the problems with impor
We all know that doing:
> from pkg import *
is bad because it obliterates the 'pkg' namespace. So why not allow something
like:
> import pkg.*
This would still be helpful for interactive sessions while keeping namespaces
around.
Sorry if this has been brought up before, my searching didn't f
