Guido van Rossum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a recent discussion in a SF patch, I noticed that PEP 328* only seems
to support relative imports within packages, while bare import
statements use the entirety of sys.path, not solving the shadowing of
standard library module names.
Hm. I'm
While I personally don't tend to use names previously existing in
the standard library, seemingly a large number of people do, hence the
not-so-rare threads on comp.lang.python which ask about such things.
Sure. There are lots of FAQs whose answer is not Python will have to change.
And how
Guido van Rossum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sure. There are lots of FAQs whose answer is not Python will have to change.
And I'm not saying Python has to change either, hence the initial query
and planned PEP. Boiling it down; if we could change import in such a
way that made standard library
Josiah Carlson wrote:
if we could change import in such a
way that made standard library imports different from standard library
imports, we could
...go on to prove that black is white and get
ourselves killed by a python on the next
zebra crossing.
--
Greg Ewing, Computer Science Dept,
[Josiah Carlson]
if we could change import in such a
way that made standard library imports different from standard library
imports, we could
[Greg Ewing]
...go on to prove that black is white and get
ourselves killed by a python on the next
zebra crossing.
I was hoping that Josiah
Guido van Rossum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[Josiah Carlson]
if we could change import in such a
way that made standard library imports different from standard library
imports, we could
[Greg Ewing]
...go on to prove that black is white and get
ourselves killed by a python on the
