On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 15:31, Terry Reedy <tjre...@udel.edu> wrote: > On 2/8/2012 3:16 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: > >> On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 14:57, Terry Reedy <tjre...@udel.edu >> Would the following work? Treat a function as a 'loop' in that it >> may be executed repeatedly. Treat 'import x' in a function as what >> it is, an __import__ call plus a local assignment. Apply a version >> of the usual optimization: put a sys.modules-based lazy import >> outside of the function (at the top of the module?) and leave the >> local assignment "x = sys.modules['x']" in the function. Change >> sys.modules.__delattr__ to replace a module with a dummy, so the >> function will still work after a deletion, as it does now. >> >> Probably, but I would hate to force people to code in a specific way for >> it to work. >> > > The intent of what I proposed it to be transparent for imports within > functions. It would be a minor optimization if anything, but it would mean > that there is a lazy mechanism in place. > > For top-level imports, unless *all* are made lazy, then there *must* be > some indication in the code of whether to make it lazy or not.
Not true; importlib would make it dead-simple to whitelist what modules to make lazy (e.g. your app code lazy but all stdlib stuff not, etc.).
_______________________________________________ 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
