I'm in general in favor of this. I will accept it once there is a
working implementation that is satisfactory.
Are we planning on supporting this in 2.6? It might break some 2.5
code that messes with modules and packages?
--Guido
On 7/10/07, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Brett Cannon wrote:
> > On 7/9/07, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Given the above limitations, I propose that we document the new
> >> attribute as follows:
> >>
> >> "If the module global __package__ exists when executing an import
> >> statement, it is used to determine the base for relative imports,
> >> instead of the __name__ and __path__ attributes.
> >
> > That's fine. __path__ actually isn't used to resolve relative imports
> > into absolute ones anyway; it's used only as a substitute to sys.path
> > when importing within a package.
>
> I was referring to the fact that if __path__ is present (indicating a
> package), then the relative import is based directly on __name__,
> otherwise it is based on __name__.rpartition('.')[0].
>
> Cheers,
> Nick.
>
> --
> Nick Coghlan | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Brisbane, Australia
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.boredomandlaziness.org
> _______________________________________________
> Python-Dev mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
> Unsubscribe:
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/guido%40python.org
>
--
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
