On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 05:20:01 am Alex Martelli wrote: > On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 9:47 AM, Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 03:30:49 am Christian Heimes wrote: > > ... > > > >> May I point you to the two leading underscores? The name > >> '__import__' clearly suggests that the function is part of > >> Python's internals. By definition all attributes of the form __*__ > >> are not meant to be used directly. > > > > What about __doc__, __name__ and __slots__, to mention just a few? > > Excellent examples of "not meant to be used directly". [snip]
We obviously have different ideas about what that means, because I agree with everything you say but disagree with the conclusion. The idiom "if __name__ == '__main__'" is very common; and I frequently have scripts that "print __doc__" if given a --help command line option. And as you say, __slots__ is meant to be bound directly. > > I believe that __import__() is the recommended way to import a > > module known only at runtime. The docs also don't seem to agree > > with your assertion that __import__ is not to be touched. On the > > contrary: > > > > "The function is invoked by the import statement. It mainly exists > > so that you can replace it with another function that has a > > compatible interface..." > > http://docs.python.org/library/functions.html > > Yes, that documentation predates the current generation of import > hooks which almost remove the need for such trickery. Should this be reported as a documentation bug? Given the new import hooks, would it be fair to say that the main reason for __import__ is to use it to import a module whose name is only known at runtime? -- Steven _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
