On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Mark Janssen <dreamingforw...@gmail.com> wrote: >> There's no point forcing them to be looked up in a two-step process. >> If you want that, you can simply reference them as >> __builtins__.whatever, but you can instead just reference them as the >> unadorned name whatever. They contribute heavily to the simplicity and >> readability of Python code - imagine if every call to len() had to be >> qualified. > > Well I would anticipate a keyword ("load"?) so one could load a > particular namespace into the global scope. The issue I guess is when > should modules be "on file" vs. "in memory" like the builtins? The > reason this is coming up, is because I would like to imagine a data > ecosystem, where I can import a set of objects from the network as if > they are local right into my interpreter environment.
The syntax you describe is effectively: from __builtins__ import * ChrisA -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list