Re: [python-committers] do we still believe explicit relative imports are bad as PEP 8 claims?
On Feb 18, 2011, at 12:36 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: >It says they are "highly discouraged" because "absolute imports are >more portable and usually more readable", but now that people have had >a chance to use explicit relative imports, do people still believe >this? I mean if we truly believed this then why did we add the syntax? >I know I have used it and love it, let alone that I don't buy the >portability argument. I agree with others that explicit relative imports should still be discouraged. I've run into problems with them where imports break under some situations. I don't remember the details, but I think it was when running unittests or under -m or something. Yeah, I should file a bug next time I run into it. -Barry signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ python-committers mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
Re: [python-committers] do we still believe explicit relative imports are bad as PEP 8 claims?
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 15:13, Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Feb 18, 2011, at 12:36 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: > > >It says they are "highly discouraged" because "absolute imports are > >more portable and usually more readable", but now that people have had > >a chance to use explicit relative imports, do people still believe > >this? I mean if we truly believed this then why did we add the syntax? > >I know I have used it and love it, let alone that I don't buy the > >portability argument. > > I agree with others that explicit relative imports should still be > discouraged. I've run into problems with them where imports break under > some > situations. I don't remember the details, but I think it was when running > unittests or under -m or something. Yeah, I should file a bug next time I > run > into it. What kind of example are you setting as the FLUFL if you won't even file a bug report?!? Don't make me hold your __future__ statement ransom! ___ python-committers mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
[python-committers] www.python.org/3.2.(x|0) do not exist
Not sure if Martin is the only person who can fix this, but it would be nice to have those URLs working. ___ python-committers mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
Re: [python-committers] do we still believe explicit relative imports are bad as PEP 8 claims?
On Feb 23, 2011, at 03:32 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: >What kind of example are you setting as the FLUFL if you won't even file a >bug report?!? Don't make me hold your __future__ statement ransom! If I filed a bug report every time I actually found a bug, I'd never be able to read email! Wait, hmmm... -Barry signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ python-committers mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
Re: [python-committers] http://www.python.org/3.2.(x|0) do not exist
Am 24.02.2011 02:39, schrieb Brett Cannon: > Not sure if Martin is the only person who can fix this, but it would be > nice to have those URLs working. I have added a redirect for 3.2.x. I haven't added one for 3.2.0, since we currently don't have any redirects for X.Y.0, only for X.Y. Regards, Martin ___ python-committers mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
