King writes:
> Hi,
>
> After reading couple of docs and articles, I have implemented a simple
> test package with nested modules.
> When running "main.py", everything is working fine. Some of my sub-
> modules has some small test routines for debug purpose.
> It's because I am using relative pack
Chris Colbert wrote:
> It seems the relative import level is dependent on the location of the
> main entry module. I thought the whole idea of relative imports was to
> make the import independent of the entry point?
You don't have to specify it explicitly, so you can move a module containing
fr
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 5:48 PM, Peter Otten <__pete...@web.de> wrote:
> Chris Colbert wrote:
>
>> I have package tree that looks like this:
>>
>> main.py
>> package
>> __init__.py
>> configuration.ini
>> server
>> __init__.py
>> xmlrpc_server.py
>> controller.py
Chris Colbert wrote:
> I have package tree that looks like this:
>
> main.py
> package
> __init__.py
> configuration.ini
> server
> __init__.py
> xmlrpc_server.py
> controller.py
> reco
>
> segmentation
> __init__.py
> r
On Mar 31, 6:39 pm, Kay Schluehr wrote:
> On 1 Apr., 00:38, Carl Banks wrote:
>
> > On Mar 31, 12:08 pm, Kay Schluehr wrote:
>
> > > > And your proposal is?
>
> > > I have still more questions than answers.
>
> > That's obvious.
>
> > Perhaps you should also refrain from making sweeping negative
On Mar 31, 12:08 pm, Kay Schluehr wrote:
> > And your proposal is?
>
> I have still more questions than answers.
That's obvious.
Perhaps you should also refrain from making sweeping negative
judgments about a system you have more questions than answers about.
(Feel free to make sweeping negativ
On 1 Apr., 00:38, Carl Banks wrote:
> On Mar 31, 12:08 pm, Kay Schluehr wrote:
>
> > > And your proposal is?
>
> > I have still more questions than answers.
>
> That's obvious.
>
> Perhaps you should also refrain from making sweeping negative
> judgments about a system you have more questions tha
Kay Schluehr wrote:
On 31 Mrz., 20:50, Terry Reedy wrote:
Although the ceremony has been performed
basically correct the interpreter god is not pacified and doesn't
respond.
But the import 'ceremony' has not been performed.
There is no import ceremony. Imports are just stated in the source
On 31 Mrz., 20:50, Terry Reedy wrote:
> Nothing is added to sys.modules, except the __main__ module, unless
> imported (which so are on startup).
Yes. The startup process is opaque but at least user defined modules
are not accidentally imported.
>
> > Although the ceremony has been performed
>
Kay Schluehr wrote:
On 31 Mrz., 18:48, s4g wrote:
This and similar solutions ( see Istvan Alberts ) point me to a
fundamental problem of the current import architecture. Suppose you
really want to run a module as a script without a prior import from a
module path:
...A\B\C> python my_module.
On 31 Mrz., 18:48, s4g wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was looking for a nice idiom for interpackage imports as I found
> this thread.
> Here come a couple of solutions I came up with. Any discussion is
> welcome.
>
> I assume the same file structure
>
> \ App
> | main.py
> +--\subpack1
> | | __init__.py
> | |
Hi,
I was looking for a nice idiom for interpackage imports as I found
this thread.
Here come a couple of solutions I came up with. Any discussion is
welcome.
I assume the same file structure
\ App
| main.py
+--\subpack1
| | __init__.py
| | module1.py
|
+--\subpack2
| | __init__.py
| | module2.p
On 31 Mrz., 04:55, "Gabriel Genellina" wrote:
> En Mon, 30 Mar 2009 21:15:59 -0300, Aahz escribió:
>
> > In article ,
> > Gabriel Genellina wrote:
>
> >> I'd recommend the oposite - use relative (intra-package) imports when
> >> possible. Explicit is better than implicit - and starting with 2.7
En Mon, 30 Mar 2009 21:15:59 -0300, Aahz escribió:
In article ,
Gabriel Genellina wrote:
I'd recommend the oposite - use relative (intra-package) imports when
possible. Explicit is better than implicit - and starting with 2.7 -when
"absolute" import semantics will be enabled by default- you'
In article ,
Gabriel Genellina wrote:
>
>I'd recommend the oposite - use relative (intra-package) imports when
>possible. Explicit is better than implicit - and starting with 2.7 -when
>"absolute" import semantics will be enabled by default- you'll *have* to
>use relative imports inside a pa
On Mar 25, 1:07 am, Kay Schluehr wrote:
> On 25 Mrz., 05:56, Carl Banks wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 24, 8:32 pm, Istvan Albert wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 24, 9:35 pm, Maxim Khitrov wrote:
>
> > > > Works perfectly fine with relative imports.
>
> > > This only demonstrates that you are not aware of w
En Tue, 24 Mar 2009 21:57:12 -0300, Istvan Albert
escribió:
On Mar 24, 3:16 pm, "Gabriel Genellina"
wrote:
Did you know, once a module is imported by the first time
yeah yeah, could we not get sidetracked with details that are not
relevant? what it obviously means is to import it in all of
On 25 Mrz., 05:56, Carl Banks wrote:
> On Mar 24, 8:32 pm, Istvan Albert wrote:
>
> > On Mar 24, 9:35 pm, Maxim Khitrov wrote:
>
> > > Works perfectly fine with relative imports.
>
> > This only demonstrates that you are not aware of what the problem
> > actually is.
>
> > Try using relative imp
On Mar 24, 8:32 pm, Istvan Albert wrote:
> On Mar 24, 9:35 pm, Maxim Khitrov wrote:
>
> > Works perfectly fine with relative imports.
>
> This only demonstrates that you are not aware of what the problem
> actually is.
>
> Try using relative imports so that it works when you import the module
> i
On Mar 24, 9:35 pm, Maxim Khitrov wrote:
> Works perfectly fine with relative imports.
This only demonstrates that you are not aware of what the problem
actually is.
Try using relative imports so that it works when you import the module
itself. Now run the module as a program. The same module t
CinnamonDonkey wrote:
> Top responses guys! This has all helped increadibly.
>
> Bearophile,
>
> My applogies if I have offended you, but:
>
> 1. "I can't know much about you from the start" - Is kind of my point.
> Perhaps it would be better to avoid jumping to conclusions and pre-
> judging so
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 8:57 PM, Istvan Albert wrote:
> Does it not bother you that a module that uses relative imports cannot
> be run on its own anymore?
$ python --help
-m mod : run library module as a script (terminates option list)
$ python -m some.module.name
Works perfectly fine with re
On Mar 24, 3:16 pm, "Gabriel Genellina"
wrote:
> Did you know, once a module is imported by the first time
yeah yeah, could we not get sidetracked with details that are not
relevant? what it obviously means is to import it in all of your
modules that need to access to relative paths
> I don't u
En Tue, 24 Mar 2009 09:01:01 -0300, R. David Murray
escribió:
CinnamonDonkey wrote:
On 23 Mar, 18:57, bearophileh...@lycos.com wrote:
> CinnamonDonkey:
>
> >what makes something a package?
>
> If you don't know what a package is, then maybe you don't need
> packages.
Thanx for taking the tim
En Tue, 24 Mar 2009 12:49:08 -0300, Istvan Albert
escribió:
On Mar 23, 10:16 am, CinnamonDonkey
wrote:
I'm fairly new to Python so I still have a lot to learn. But I'd like
to know how to correectly use relative imports.
Relative imports are *fundamentally* broken in python. You will soon
On Mar 23, 10:16 am, CinnamonDonkey
wrote:
> I'm fairly new to Python so I still have a lot to learn. But I'd like
> to know how to correectly use relative imports.
Relative imports are *fundamentally* broken in python. You will soon
see that code using relative import will break if you attempt
Top responses guys! This has all helped increadibly.
Bearophile,
My applogies if I have offended you, but:
1. "I can't know much about you from the start" - Is kind of my point.
Perhaps it would be better to avoid jumping to conclusions and pre-
judging someones abilities simply because they are
CinnamonDonkey:
> It is neither constructive nor educational.
>
> It's a bit like saying "If you don't know what a function is, then
> maybe you don't need it. ... have you tried having a single block of
> code?"
>
> The point of people coming to these forums is to LEARN and share
> knowledge. Perh
Top posting corrected for clarity.
CinnamonDonkey wrote:
> On 23 Mar, 18:57, bearophileh...@lycos.com wrote:
> > CinnamonDonkey:
> >
> > >what makes something a package?
> >
> > If you don't know what a package is, then maybe you don't need
> > packages.
> >
> > In your project is it possible to
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 5:05 AM, CinnamonDonkey
wrote:
> Thanx Max - your explanation sorted it :-), and a big thank you to
> everyone else also!
>
> >From the various posts, Python considers any directory containing the
> __init__.py file to be a package. The top level package is the highest
> di
Thanx Max - your explanation sorted it :-), and a big thank you to
everyone else also!
>From the various posts, Python considers any directory containing the
__init__.py file to be a package. The top level package is the highest
directory (closest to root) with a __init__.py file.
Inter-package c
CinnamonDonkey:
>what makes something a package?
If you don't know what a package is, then maybe you don't need
packages.
In your project is it possible to avoid using packages and just use
modules in the same directory?
Bye,
bearophile
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Mar 23, 11:22 am, CinnamonDonkey
wrote:
> Hi Guys,
>
> Thanx for the quick responses, it is very much appreciated!
>
> Skip, that's a good point about "C++ != Python" and I assure you I am
> very much aware of that ;-).
>
> Looking athttp://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0328/#guido-s-decision
> w
En Mon, 23 Mar 2009 13:19:51 -0300, CinnamonDonkey
escribió:
My applogies if this is a silly question... but what makes something a
package?
A package is a directory with an __init__.py file [that Python is aware
of].
and does that mean that what I am trying to do is not
possible ?
Y
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 12:19 PM, CinnamonDonkey
wrote:
> My applogies if this is a silly question... but what makes something a
> package? and does that mean that what I am trying to do is not
> possible ?
A package is a directory that has an __init__.py file. That file can
be empty, or contain
My applogies if this is a silly question... but what makes something a
package? and does that mean that what I am trying to do is not
possible ?
:(
On 23 Mar, 15:53, "Gabriel Genellina" wrote:
> En Mon, 23 Mar 2009 12:22:21 -0300, CinnamonDonkey
> escribió:
>
>
>
> >> >> \ App
> >>
En Mon, 23 Mar 2009 12:22:21 -0300, CinnamonDonkey
escribió:
>> \ App
>> | main.py
>> +--\subpack1
>> | | __init__.py
>> | | module1.py
>> |
>> +--\subpack2
>> | | __init__.py
>> | | module2.py
>> Module1 needs to access functionality
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 11:22 AM, CinnamonDonkey
wrote:
> Looking at http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0328/#guido-s-decision
> would suggest, unless I am completely miss-understanding the example,
> that '.' refers to the current level and '..' pops up a level.
That is correct, but you cannot j
Hi Guys,
Thanx for the quick responses, it is very much appreciated!
Skip, that's a good point about "C++ != Python" and I assure you I am
very much aware of that ;-).
Looking at http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0328/#guido-s-decision
would suggest, unless I am completely miss-understanding th
>> Please, please... please! don't go off on rants about why you think
>> relative imports should not be used. I've got 15+ years in C++ and
>> relative inclusion of other sections of code has never been a
>> problem. As far as I am concerned what I am trying to do is
>> perfe
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 10:16 AM, CinnamonDonkey
wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I'm fairly new to Python so I still have a lot to learn. But I'd like
> to know how to correectly use relative imports.
>
> Please, please... please! don't go off on rants about why you think
> relative imports should not be use
On 17 Dez., 11:01, Nicholas wrote:
> I am sure I am not the first to run into this issue, but what is the
> solution?
When you use 2to3 just uncomment or delete the file fix_import.py in
lib2to3/fixes/ .
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Dec 17, 4:01 am, Nicholas wrote:
> Imagine a module that looks like
>
> ModuleDir
> __init__.py
> a.py
> b.py
>
> In python 2.x I used to have tests at the end of each of my modules,
> so that module b.py might look something like
>
> import a
> ..
> ..
>
> if _
nicholas.c...@gmail.com wrote:
Imagine a module that looks like
ModuleDir
__init__.py
a.py
b.py
In python 2.x I used to have tests at the end of each of my modules,
so that module b.py might look something like
import a
..
..
if __name__ == '__main__':
run
Gabriel Genellina wrote:
> En Sun, 31 Aug 2008 07:27:12 -0300, Wojtek Walczak
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió:
>
>> On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 06:40:35 GMT, OKB (not okblacke) wrote:
>>
Download the latest beta for your system and give it a try.
>>>
>>> Thanks for the advice, but I'd reall
En Sun, 31 Aug 2008 07:27:12 -0300, Wojtek Walczak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió:
> On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 06:40:35 GMT, OKB (not okblacke) wrote:
>
>>> Download the latest beta for your system and give it a try.
>>
>> Thanks for the advice, but I'd really rather not deal with
>> installing the e
On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 06:40:35 GMT, OKB (not okblacke) wrote:
>> Download the latest beta for your system and give it a try.
>
> Thanks for the advice, but I'd really rather not deal with
> installing the entire thing alongside my existing version, possibly
> causing conflicts in who knows w
Terry Reedy wrote:
>
>> So, will relative imports in Python 3.0 allow things like
>> "import
>> ..relative.importing.path as prettyname"? If not, why not?
>
> Download the latest beta for your system and give it a try.
Thanks for the advice, but I'd really rathe
So, will relative imports in Python 3.0 allow things like "import
..relative.importing.path as prettyname"? If not, why not?
Download the latest beta for your system and give it a try.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Carl: Your solution is kind of what I was leaning towards after a bit
of thinking. Since I have to have the modules each have their own
detect() method, then it wouldn't be too hard to have their own test()
method to put them through their paces.
Catrironpi: I will look into this as it might hel
On Aug 8, 12:37 pm, DG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alright, I have searched and searched and read many conversations on
> the topic of relative and absolute imports and am still not getting
> the whole thing through my skull.
>
> Highlights of what I've
> read:http://mail.python.org/pipermail/pyt
Pat O'Hara wrote:
> Hey guys, I know this is a really stupid question, but I've tried
> googling and nothing came up. I also tried IRC, but it was too crowded
> and I didn't get much useful information.
>
> I'm using Python 2.5 on WinXP, and I'm trying to do a relative import.
> Here's the pack
Chris wrote:
After reading that link I tried to change my imports like this:
" from .myPythonFileInTheSameFolder import MyClass"
This style of import is not yet implemented.
I'm getting more and more confused...
How can I correctly do a relative import ?
I think your choices are
- keep doing what y
After reading that link I tried to change my imports like this:
" from .myPythonFileInTheSameFolder import MyClass"
Well, this caused an error in PyLint:
Encountered "." at line 1, column 6. Was expecting one of: "or" ...
"and" ... "not" ... "is" ... "in" ... "lambda" ...
Michael Hoffman wrote:
Chris wrote:
Why do relative imports cause warnings in PyLint?
http://www.python.org/peps/pep-0328.html#rationale-for-absolute-imports
I notice that this section says that
from __future__ import absolute_import
will be a feature of Python 2.4. Apparently it didn't make the
Chris wrote:
Why do relative imports cause warnings in PyLint?
http://www.python.org/peps/pep-0328.html#rationale-for-absolute-imports
--
Michael Hoffman
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
56 matches
Mail list logo
