Some library authors get pretty pissy about implicit imports at the root
On Thu, Apr 26, 2018, 09:37 Paul Moore <p.f.mo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 26 April 2018 at 14:29, Julian DeMille via Python-ideas
> <python-ideas@python.org> wrote:
> > I personally would like a feature where instead of doing `from ... import
> > ...` (which imports the specified items into the current namespace), one
> > could use something along the lines of `import <lib>.{ <mod1>, <mod2>,
> ...
> > }` such that the imported modules/attributes could be accessed as
> > `<lib>.<mod1>`, etc.
>
> What are the benefits of this over a simple "import <lib>"? I get that
> it will mean that *only* the names listed will be accessible as
> <lib>.<mod>, but I don't see why that's important (and specifically
> why it's important enough to warrant dedicated syntax). Hiding names
> in a namespace isn't typically something that Python provides language
> support for.
>
> Paul
>
--
Thanks,
Julian DeMille
CEO, demilleTech, LLC
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager.
This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the
individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not
disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender
immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and
delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient
you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any
action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly
prohibited.
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list
Python-ideas@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
