Armin Rigo wrote: > My (limited) understanding of the motivation for relative imports is > that they are only here as a transitional feature. Fully-absolute > imports are the official future.
Guido does seem to have a dislike for relative imports, but I don't really understand why. The usefulness of being able to make a package self-contained and movable to another place in the package hierarchy without hacking it seems self-evident to me. What's happening in Py3k? Will relative imports still exist? > there > is no clean way from a test module 'foo.bar.test.test_hello' to import > 'foo.bar.hello': the top-level directory must first be inserted into > sys.path magically. I've felt for a long time that problems like this wouldn't arise so much if there were a closer connection between the package hierarchy and the file system structure. There really shouldn't be any such thing as sys.path -- the view that any given module has of the package namespace should depend only on where it is, not on the history of how it came to be invoked. -- Greg Ewing, Computer Science Dept, +--------------------------------------+ University of Canterbury, | Carpe post meridiem! | Christchurch, New Zealand | (I'm not a morning person.) | [EMAIL PROTECTED] +--------------------------------------+ _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
