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
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 3:36 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 believ
Le vendredi 18 février 2011 à 12:36 -0800, Brett Cannon a écrit :
> 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
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> (especially non-trivial variants such as "from ..foo import bar").
Eeewe.
More than one leading "." should be considered a bug.
-Fred
--
Fred L. Drake, Jr.
"A storm broke loose in my mind." --Albert Einstein
_
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 sy
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 3:36 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 believ
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 10:35 PM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
> 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
>> thi
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
