Guido van Rossum wrote:
Now it is time to
withdraw the anti-recommendation.
Or at least re-word them all to make it clear that they're
talking about the *old* style of relative import in 2.x.
--
Greg
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 07:09:48AM +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> The remaining scenarios we have that can lead to duplication of a
> module happen regardless of the import style you use*.
>
> Cheers,
> Nick.
>
> *For the curious - those scenarios relate to ending up with the same
> module present
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 4:21 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 11:17 AM, Darren Dale wrote:
>> The issue is implementing a PEP with nice support for relative
>> imports, and then documenting that it should never be used.
>
> Isn't this mostly historical? Until the new relative-i
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 3:37 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
> On 10/5/2010 2:21 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 11:17 AM, Darren Dale wrote:
>>>
>>> The issue is implementing a PEP with nice support for relative
>>> imports, and then documenting that it should never be used.
>>
>>
On 10/5/2010 2:21 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 11:17 AM, Darren Dale wrote:
The issue is implementing a PEP with nice support for relative
imports, and then documenting that it should never be used.
Isn't this mostly historical? Until the new relative-import syntax was
i
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 11:17 AM, Darren Dale wrote:
> The issue is implementing a PEP with nice support for relative
> imports, and then documenting that it should never be used.
Isn't this mostly historical? Until the new relative-import syntax was
implemented there were various problems with re
On Tue, 5 Oct 2010 14:17:47 -0400
Darren Dale wrote:
> >> Thats not the point though. Due to compatibility issues, maybe I don't
> >> want to expose the code at the top level. Maybe the foo package is
> >> distributed elsewhere as a top-level package, but I need to use an
> >> older version due to
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 1:45 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Le mardi 05 octobre 2010 à 13:28 -0400, Darren Dale a écrit :
>> >>
>> >> As the OP pointed out, for code that may be *included* in other projects
>> >> there is no other choice. This is often useful for packages shared
>> >> between one or t
> If they were actively discouraged, perhaps performing a relative
> import would raise a warning,
This would be done if this import style was deprecated. It’s different
from it being discouraged.
> or maybe distutils would raise a warning at install time,
Distutils does not inspect source files.
Le mardi 05 octobre 2010 à 13:28 -0400, Darren Dale a écrit :
> >>
> >> As the OP pointed out, for code that may be *included* in other projects
> >> there is no other choice. This is often useful for packages shared
> >> between one or two projects that nonetheless don't warrant separate
> >> dist
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 12:43 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Oct 2010 17:18:18 +0100
> Michael Foord wrote:
>> >
>> > Generally I'm +0 on relative imports as a whole.
>>
>> As the OP pointed out, for code that may be *included* in other projects
>> there is no other choice. This is often u
On Tue, 05 Oct 2010 17:18:18 +0100
Michael Foord wrote:
> >
> > Generally I'm +0 on relative imports as a whole.
>
> As the OP pointed out, for code that may be *included* in other projects
> there is no other choice. This is often useful for packages shared
> between one or two projects that n
On 05/10/2010 17:13, Simon Cross wrote:
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 4:56 PM, Darren Dale wrote:
from ...sys import path
Note that while that last case is legal, it is certainly
discouraged ("insane" was the word Guido used).
Only if by "legal" you mean "happened to work". It stops "happenin
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 4:56 PM, Darren Dale wrote:
> from ...sys import path
>
> Note that while that last case is legal, it is certainly
> discouraged ("insane" was the word Guido used).
Only if by "legal" you mean "happened to work". It stops "happening to
work" in Python 2.6.6. :)
General
I have a couple questions/comments about the use of PEP 328-style
relative imports. For example, the faq at
http://docs.python.org/py3k/faq/programming.html#what-are-the-best-practices-for-using-import-in-a-module
reads:
"Never use relative package imports. If you’re writing code that’s in
the pac
15 matches
Mail list logo
