Andy Maier added the comment:
Hi, I would like to revive this issue, and have a few comments:
1. In Darren's original proposal, I suggest to say "implicit (old-style)
relative imports" instead of "old-style relative imports", because that is the
term used in the Python Tutorial (the description of the ´import´ statement in
2.7 does not mention implicit relative imports at all).
2. It seems to me that David's suggestion is already reflected in the original
proposal. Or maybe I don't understand it right...
3. I agree with Éric's comment that implicit relative imports should still be
explained. However, I'm not sure that needs to be done in the FAQ. After all,
the FAQ does not explain absolute or explicit relative imports either, and
spending more words on the discouraged approach than on the recommended
approaches does not seem appropriate to me.
4. I have to say that I'm generally unhappy if I see PEPs mentioned as a
specification ("See PEP 328 for details"). I have sympathy for referencing PEPs
as background information and for the rationales they usually contain. Could we
reference the description of the ´import´ statement for details, instead of
referencing the PEP (in both FAQs)?
Andy
----------
nosy: +andymaier
_______________________________________
Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue10031>
_______________________________________
_______________________________________________
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
