On Sat, Jun 3, 2017 at 4:36 AM, Steven D'Aprano <st...@pearwood.info> wrote: > I believe that it is also a feature for scripts to be able to depend on > resources in their directory, including other modules. That's the > current behaviour. [snip] > > Broken or not, removing '' from the sys.path will break scripts that > expect to import modules in their directory. [snip]
Which is why the implicit sys.path entry probably can't go away, even though it would be nice in some ways. IIRC, in the past Guido has indicated he's opposed dropping the implicit sys.path entry for reasons along these lines. > > How about... ? > > - in 3.7, we add a pair of command line flags, let's say: > > --script-directory # add '' to sys.path when running scripts > --no-script-directory # don't add '' to sys.path In http://bugs.python.org/issue13475 spells these as "--path0" and "--nopath0". Also see http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0395/ for "ways that the current automatic initialisation of sys.path[0] can go wrong" (quoted from the issue). > > with the default remaining to add it > > - add a warning to 3.7 whenever you import a module from '' > > - in 3.9, we move '' to the end of sys.path instead of the start Both seem okay. Doing so would help with some of the reasons detailed in PEP 395. However we'd need to be sure the consequences are as minimal as they seem. :) > > - and in 3.9, the default changes to not adding '' to sys.path unless > explicitly requested. We'd need to make sure there was a simple, obvious replacement. I'm not convinced dropping the implicit sys.path entry is worth doing though. -eric _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
