On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 8:55 PM, Mike Orr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 4:12 AM, Tomasz Nazar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Cyclic dependencies do not work just that simple. "Cyclic" imports >> unfortunately have to placed inside a method - not at the top of >> module. > > Importing in a function is the best way to deal with cyclic imports, > yes. Although even better is to avoid them entirely.
Yes. Of course it is :) It's a matter of taste. I don't like having imports inside a method, though sometimes that's the only way.. > Why do conference and participant have to import each other? Neither > is using the other as its base class. If you have a tight > relationship between two classes like this, it's a good reason to put > them in the same module. That was just a fake example to test if that works. In real examples I have few such situations and I won't elaborate on that. I feel sorry that Python import works this way. It's just the way it is.. So I look for best method to work round that. I do not have and don't want to design my classes and modules in a tree like graph. IMHO Python forces me here too much - and my nature is to resist when pushed too much ;) T. -- _i______'simplicity_is_the_key'__________tomasz_nazar _ii____'i_am_concern_oriented'________________JKM-UPR _iii__'patsystem.sf.net'___________________linux_user _'aspectized.com'___________________________prevayler --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pylons-discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to pylons-discuss@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
