Fred L. Drake, Jr. wrote: > On Wednesday 31 May 2006 01:49, Ronald Oussoren wrote: > > I can understand the wish for a toplevel package that contains the > > stdlib, although I don't think I agree with that. > > I understand it, and mostly wish for it at this point, though I think the > name really has to be something short to work.
I've thought about this for a while, and wondered if it wouldn't be more palatable in conjunction with a small syntactic addition to the import statement: 'from :'. An example should make the idea clear, assuming 'py' or 'std' as the canonical name for the stdlib: from std: import email import sys import os from scipy: import linalg import fft This obviously raises the problem of offering two ways of doing the same: from foo import bar from foo: import bar if the ':' is allowed but left as optional. Rather than having a nested stdlib, what I'd like to have is to protection from accidental name clashes with other things. An 'std' namespace would future-proof the stdlib in this regard, with a minimal burden on code writers. I already write the above anyway in most of my code since I think it helps clarify what comes from where, it's just that I use a comment: # stdlib imports import os import sys # third-party imports ... If this particular approach has already been debated and rejected, please forgive me: I did read as much as I could find on the archives first. Cheers, f _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list Python-3000@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
