Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> [Josiah Carlson]
> > > if we could change import in such a
> > > way that made standard library imports different from standard library
> > > imports, we could
>
> [Greg Ewing]
> > ...go on to prove that black is white and get
> > ourselves killed
[Josiah Carlson]
> > if we could change import in such a
> > way that made standard library imports different from standard library
> > imports, we could
[Greg Ewing]
> ...go on to prove that black is white and get
> ourselves killed by a python on the next
> zebra crossing.
I was hoping that Jos
Josiah Carlson wrote:
if we could change import in such a
way that made standard library imports different from standard library
imports, we could
...go on to prove that black is white and get
ourselves killed by a python on the next
zebra crossing.
--
Greg Ewing, Computer Science Dept, +--
Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sure. There are lots of FAQs whose answer is not "Python will have to change".
And I'm not saying Python has to change either, hence the initial query
and planned PEP. Boiling it down; if we could change import in such a
way that made standard librar
> While I personally don't tend to use names previously existing in
> the standard library, seemingly a large number of people do, hence the
> not-so-rare threads on comp.lang.python which ask about such things.
Sure. There are lots of FAQs whose answer is not "Python will have to change".
> > An
Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In a recent discussion in a SF patch, I noticed that PEP 328* only seems
> > to support relative imports within packages, while bare import
> > statements use the entirety of sys.path, not solving the shadowing of
> > standard library module names.
>
> In a recent discussion in a SF patch, I noticed that PEP 328* only seems
> to support relative imports within packages, while bare import
> statements use the entirety of sys.path, not solving the shadowing of
> standard library module names.
Hm. I'm not convinced that there is a *problem* with
In a recent discussion in a SF patch, I noticed that PEP 328* only seems
to support relative imports within packages, while bare import
statements use the entirety of sys.path, not solving the shadowing of
standard library module names.
I have certainly forgotten bits of discussion from last spri
