On Fri, 8 Apr 2022 at 10:27, Malthe <mbo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 8 Apr 2022 at 08:51, Paul Moore <p.f.mo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Are you exaggerating for effect here or would this *actually* just expand to
> >
> > from datetime import datetime
> > default_args = {
> > "start_date": datetime(...)
> > }
>
> Yes – and of course that is just a snippet, an actual complete script
> will have lots of such imports.
>
> The point is that in a scripting situation (especially one in which
> you have many small scripts) the
> top-level import requirement for simple imports like `datetime`
> becomes rather verbose.
But Python's origin is in scripting situations, and explicit imports
for scripts has always been both the normal approach, and one of
Python's *strengths* ("Explicit is better than implicit"). Arguing
that explicit imports are a bad thing in (general) scripts is arguing
against decades of history and experience. If there's a reason why
*your specific context* would benefit from an abbreviated form, you
need to present it. But arguing that explicit imports are too verbose
for all cases of scripting isn't going to fly, frankly.
Paul
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/
Message archived at
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/TMJ4ZI7J62C64PZXQU3WRLFA6FAKPRVB/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
