445,732 Members | 1,388 Online
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 445,732 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

# from __future__ import absolute_import ?

 P: n/a from __future__ import absolute_import Is there a way to check if this is working? I get the same results with or without it. Python 2.5 (r25:51908, Sep 19 2006, 09:52:17) [MSC v.1310 32 bit (Intel)] on win 32 _Ron Feb 2 '07 #1
7 Replies

 P: n/a Ron Adam wrote: > from __future__ import absolute_import Is there a way to check if this is working? I get the same results with or without it. Python 2.5 (r25:51908, Sep 19 2006, 09:52:17) [MSC v.1310 32 bit (Intel)] on win 32 If there are two modules 'foo', one at the toplevel and the other inside a package 'bar', from __future__ import absolute_import import foo will import the toplevel module whereas import foo will import bar.foo. A messy demonstration: $ls bar absolute.py foo.py __init__.py relative.py$ cat bar/absolute.py from __future__ import absolute_import import foo $cat bar/relative.py import foo$ cat foo.py print "toplevel" $cat bar/foo.py print "in bar"$ python2.5 -c 'import bar.absolute' toplevel $python2.5 -c 'import bar.relative' in bar Another example is here: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/pyt...ry/422889.html Peter Feb 2 '07 #2  P: n/a Peter Otten wrote: If there are two modules 'foo', one at the toplevel and the other inside a package 'bar', from __future__ import absolute_import import foo will import the toplevel module whereas import foo will import bar.foo. .... provided these imports are performed from modules within 'bar'. Peter Feb 2 '07 #3  P: n/a Peter Otten wrote: Ron Adam wrote: > from __future__ import absolute_importIs there a way to check if this is working? I get the same results withor without it. Python 2.5 (r25:51908, Sep 19 2006, 09:52:17) [MSC v.1310 32 bit (Intel)] on win 32 If there are two modules 'foo', one at the toplevel and the other inside a package 'bar', from __future__ import absolute_import import foo will import the toplevel module whereas import foo will import bar.foo. A messy demonstration:$ ls bar absolute.py foo.py __init__.py relative.py $cat bar/absolute.py from __future__ import absolute_import import foo$ cat bar/relative.py import foo $cat foo.py print "toplevel"$ cat bar/foo.py print "in bar" $python2.5 -c 'import bar.absolute' toplevel$ python2.5 -c 'import bar.relative' in bar Another example is here: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/pyt...ry/422889.html Peter Thanks, that helped, I see why I was having trouble. work | |- foo.py # print "foo not in bar" | - bar | |- __init__.py | |- foo.py # print "foo in bar" | |- absolute.py # from __futer__ import absolute_import | # import foo | - relative.py # import foo * Where "work" is in the path. (1) C:\work>python -c "import bar.absolute" foo not in bar C:\work>python -c "import bar.relative" foo in bar (2) C:\work>python -m "bar.absolute" foo not in bar C:\work>python -m "bar.relative" foo not in bar (3) C:\work>python Python 2.5 (r25:51908, Sep 19 2006, 09:52:17) [MSC v.1310 32 bit (Intel)] on win 32 Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information. >>import bar.absolute foo not in bar >>import bar.relative foo in bar (4) C:\work>cd bar C:\work\bar>python -c "import bar.absolute" foo in bar C:\work\bar>python -c "import bar.relative" foo in bar (5) C:\work\bar>python Python 2.5 (r25:51908, Sep 19 2006, 09:52:17) [MSC v.1310 32 bit (Intel)] on win 32 Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information. >>import bar.absolute foo in bar >>import bar.relative foo in bar >>> Case (2) seems like it is a bug. Why not also have (4), and (5) do the same as cases (1) and (3)? in cases (4) and (5), that is the result I would expect if I did: import absolute # with no 'bar.' prefix. import relative From what I understand, in 2.6 relative imports will be depreciated, and in 2.7 they will raise an error. (providing plans don't change) Would that mean the absolute imports in (4) and (5) would either find the 'foo not in bar' or raise an error? If so, is there any way to force (warning/error) behavior now? Cheers, Ron Feb 2 '07 #4

 P: n/a Ron Adam wrote: Peter Otten wrote: >Ron Adam wrote: >> from __future__ import absolute_importIs there a way to check if this is working? I get the same results withor without it. Python 2.5 (r25:51908, Sep 19 2006, 09:52:17) [MSC v.1310 32 bit (Intel)] on win 32 If there are two modules 'foo', one at the toplevel and the other insidea package 'bar',from __future__ import absolute_importimport foowill import the toplevel module whereasimport foowill import bar.foo. A messy demonstration:$ls barabsolute.py foo.py __init__.py relative.py$ cat bar/absolute.pyfrom __future__ import absolute_importimport foo$cat bar/relative.pyimport foo$ cat foo.pyprint "toplevel"$cat bar/foo.pyprint "in bar"$ python2.5 -c 'import bar.absolute'toplevel\$ python2.5 -c 'import bar.relative'in bar Another example is here:http://mail.python.org/pipermail/pyt...ry/422889.htmlPeter Thanks, that helped, I see why I was having trouble. work | |- foo.py # print "foo not in bar" | - bar | |- __init__.py | |- foo.py # print "foo in bar" | |- absolute.py # from __futer__ import absolute_import | # import foo | - relative.py # import foo * Where "work" is in the path. (1) C:\work>python -c "import bar.absolute" foo not in bar C:\work>python -c "import bar.relative" foo in bar (2) C:\work>python -m "bar.absolute" foo not in bar C:\work>python -m "bar.relative" foo not in bar (3) C:\work>python Python 2.5 (r25:51908, Sep 19 2006, 09:52:17) [MSC v.1310 32 bit (Intel)] on win 32 Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information. >>import bar.absolute foo not in bar >>import bar.relative foo in bar (4) C:\work>cd bar A path below the package level is generally a good means to shoot yourself in the foot and should be avoided with or without absolute import. C:\work\bar>python -c "import bar.absolute" foo in bar C:\work\bar>python -c "import bar.relative" foo in bar (5) C:\work\bar>python Python 2.5 (r25:51908, Sep 19 2006, 09:52:17) [MSC v.1310 32 bit (Intel)] on win 32 Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information. >>import bar.absolute foo in bar >>import bar.relative foo in bar >>> Case (2) seems like it is a bug. I think so, too. Why not also have (4), and (5) do the same as cases (1) and (3)? The work/bar directory is the current working directory and occurs in the path before the work directory. When bar.absolute imports foo python is unaware that work/bar/foo.py is part of the bar package. in cases (4) and (5), that is the result I would expect if I did: import absolute # with no 'bar.' prefix. import relative From what I understand, in 2.6 relative imports will be depreciated, and in 2.7 they will raise an error. (providing plans don't change) Would that mean the absolute imports in (4) and (5) would either find the 'foo not in bar' or raise an error? No, in 1, 3 -- and 2 if the current behaviour is indeed a bug. This is only for the relative import which would have to be spelt from . import foo in an absolute-import-as-default environment; import foo would always be an absolute import. If so, is there any way to force (warning/error) behavior now? I don't know. Peter Feb 3 '07 #5

 P: n/a Peter Otten wrote: Ron Adam wrote: >>work | |- foo.py # print "foo not in bar" | - bar | |- __init__.py | |- foo.py # print "foo in bar" | |- absolute.py # from __futer__ import absolute_import | # import foo | - relative.py # import foo * Where "work" is in the path. (1)C:\work>python -c "import bar.absolute"foo not in barC:\work>python -c "import bar.relative"foo in bar (2)C:\work>python -m "bar.absolute"foo not in barC:\work>python -m "bar.relative"foo not in bar (3)C:\work>pythonPython 2.5 (r25:51908, Sep 19 2006, 09:52:17) [MSC v.1310 32 bit (Intel)]on win 32Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information. > >>import bar.absolute foo not in bar > >>import bar.relative foo in bar (4)C:\work>cd bar A path below the package level is generally a good means to shoot yourself in the foot and should be avoided with or without absolute import. Seems so. :-/ >C:\work\bar>python -c "import bar.absolute"foo in barC:\work\bar>python -c "import bar.relative"foo in bar (5)C:\work\bar>pythonPython 2.5 (r25:51908, Sep 19 2006, 09:52:17) [MSC v.1310 32 bit (Intel)]on win 32Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information. > >>import bar.absolute foo in bar > >>import bar.relative foo in bar > >>> Case (2) seems like it is a bug. I think so, too. This one is the reasons I had trouble figuring it out. I was using the -m command option when I tried to test it. There is a bug report on absolute/relative imports already. I'm not sure if this particular item is covered under it or not. Doesn't sound like it as the bug report address the relative aspects of it. >Why not also have (4), and (5) do the same as cases (1) and (3)? The work/bar directory is the current working directory and occurs in the path before the work directory. Yes. Unfortunately this is a side effect of using the os's directory structure to represent a python "package" structure. If a package was represented as a combined single file. Then the working directory would always be the package directory. When bar.absolute imports foo python is unaware that work/bar/foo.py is part of the bar package. Umm.... isn't the "bar" stuck on the front of "bar.absolute" a pretty obvious hint. ;-) If you run the module directly as a file... python bar/foo.py or python foo.py Then I can see that it doesn't know. But even then, it's possible to find out. ie... just check for an __init__.py file. Python has a certain minimalist quality where it tries to do a lot with a minimum amount of resources, which I generally love. But in this situation that might not be the best thing. It would not be difficult for python to detect if a module is in a package, and determine the package location. With the move to explicit absolute/relative imports, it would make since if python also were a little smarter in this area. >in cases (4) and (5), that is the result I would expect if I did: import absolute # with no 'bar.' prefix. import relative From what I understand, in 2.6 relative imports will be depreciated, and in 2.7they will raise an error. (providing plans don't change)Would that mean the absolute imports in (4) and (5) would either find the'foo not in bar' or raise an error? No, in 1, 3 -- and 2 if the current behaviour is indeed a bug. This is only for the relative import which would have to be spelt from . import foo Was that a 'yes' for exampels 4 and 5, since 1,2 and 3 are 'no'? in an absolute-import-as-default environment; import foo would always be an absolute import. But what is the precise meaning of "absolute import" in this un-dotted case? Currently it is: "A module or package that is located in sys.path or the current directory". But maybe a narrower interpretation may be better?: "A module or package found in sys.path, or the current directory and is *not* in a package." If it's in a package then the dotted "absolute" name should be used. Right? I guess what I'm getting at, is it would be nice if the following were always true. from __import__ import absolute_import import thispackage.module import thispackage.subpackage # If thispackage is the same name as the current package, # then do not look on sys.path. import otherpackage.module import otherpackage.subpackage # If otherpackage is a different name from the current package, # then do not look in this package. import module import package # Module and package are not in a package, even the current one, # so don't look in any packages, even if the current directory is # in this (or other) package. If these were always true, :-) I think it avoid some situations where things don't work, or don't work like one would expect. In addition to the above, when executing modules directly from a directory inside a package, if python were to detect the package and then follow these same rules. It would avoid even more surprises. While you are editing modules in a package, you could then run them directly and get the same behavior you get if you cd'd out of the package and then ran it. All in all, what I'm suggesting is that the concept of a package (type) be much stronger than that of a search path or current directory. And that this would add a fair amount of reliability to the language. IMHO, of course. :-) Cheers, Ron >If so, is there any way to force (warning/error) behavior now? I don't know. Peter Feb 3 '07 #6

 P: n/a Ron Adam wrote: Peter Otten wrote: >Ron Adam wrote: >>>work | |- foo.py # print "foo not in bar" | - bar | |- __init__.py | |- foo.py # print "foo in bar" | |- absolute.py # from __futer__ import absolute_import | # import foo | - relative.py # import foo * Where "work" is in the path. (1)C:\work>python -c "import bar.absolute"foo not in barC:\work>python -c "import bar.relative"foo in bar (2)C:\work>python -m "bar.absolute"foo not in barC:\work>python -m "bar.relative"foo not in bar (3)C:\work>pythonPython 2.5 (r25:51908, Sep 19 2006, 09:52:17) [MSC v.1310 32 bit(Intel)] on win 32Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information. >>import bar.absolutefoo not in bar >>import bar.relativefoo in bar (4)C:\work>cd bar A path below the package level is generally a good means to shootyourself in the foot and should be avoided with or without absoluteimport. Seems so. :-/ >>C:\work\bar>python -c "import bar.absolute"foo in barC:\work\bar>python -c "import bar.relative"foo in bar (5)C:\work\bar>pythonPython 2.5 (r25:51908, Sep 19 2006, 09:52:17) [MSC v.1310 32 bit(Intel)] on win 32Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information. >>import bar.absolutefoo in bar >>import bar.relativefoo in bar >>> Case (2) seems like it is a bug. I think so, too. This one is the reasons I had trouble figuring it out. I was using the -m command option when I tried to test it. There is a bug report on absolute/relative imports already. I'm not sure if this particular item is covered under it or not. Doesn't sound like it as the bug report address the relative aspects of it. >>Why not also have (4), and (5) do the same as cases (1) and (3)? The work/bar directory is the current working directory and occurs in thepath before the work directory. Yes. Unfortunately this is a side effect of using the os's directory structure to represent a python "package" structure. If a package was represented as a combined single file. Then the working directory would always be the package directory. When bar.absolute imports foo python is unaware that work/bar/foo.py is part of the bar package. Umm.... isn't the "bar" stuck on the front of "bar.absolute" a pretty obvious hint. ;-) If you run the module directly as a file... python bar/foo.py or python foo.py Then I can see that it doesn't know. But even then, it's possible to find out. ie... just check for an __init__.py file. Python has a certain minimalist quality where it tries to do a lot with a minimum amount of resources, which I generally love. But in this situation that might not be the best thing. It would not be difficult for python to detect if a module is in a package, and determine the package location. With the move to explicit absolute/relative imports, it would make since if python also were a little smarter in this area. I have not used the new import behaviour seriously, but -- I think I like it :-) >>in cases (4) and (5), that is the result I would expect if I did: import absolute # with no 'bar.' prefix. import relative From what I understand, in 2.6 relative imports will be depreciated, and in 2.7they will raise an error. (providing plans don't change)Would that mean the absolute imports in (4) and (5) would either findthe 'foo not in bar' or raise an error? No, in 1, 3 -- and 2 if the current behaviour is indeed a bug. This isonly for the relative import which would have to be speltfrom . import foo Was that a 'yes' for exampels 4 and 5, since 1,2 and 3 are 'no'? (4) and (5) are misconfigurations, IMHO. >in an absolute-import-as-default environment;import foowould always be an absolute import. But what is the precise meaning of "absolute import" in this un-dotted case? Currently it is: "A module or package that is located in sys.path or the current directory". But maybe a narrower interpretation may be better?: "A module or package found in sys.path, or the current directory and is *not* in a package." You'd have to add a not-in-package test to every import - I don't think it's worth the effort. If it's in a package then the dotted "absolute" name should be used. Right? Either that or the full path. The dotted path makes it easy to move the module between packages. I guess what I'm getting at, is it would be nice if the following were always true. from __import__ import absolute_import import thispackage.module import thispackage.subpackage # If thispackage is the same name as the current package, # then do not look on sys.path. import otherpackage.module import otherpackage.subpackage # If otherpackage is a different name from the current package, # then do not look in this package. import module import package # Module and package are not in a package, even the current one, # so don't look in any packages, even if the current directory is # in this (or other) package. If these were always true, :-) I think it avoid some situations where things don't work, or don't work like one would expect. In addition to the above, when executing modules directly from a directory inside a package, if python were to detect the package and then follow these same rules. It would avoid even more surprises. While you are editing modules in a package, you could then run them directly and get the same behavior you get if you cd'd out of the package and then ran it. All in all, what I'm suggesting is that the concept of a package (type) be much stronger than that of a search path or current directory. And that this would add a fair amount of reliability to the language. I think if you go that way, ultimately you will need some kind of package registry. I expect that the new import behaviour will get you 99 percent there with one percent of the hassle. But we will see... Peter Feb 9 '07 #7

 P: n/a Peter Otten wrote: Ron Adam wrote: >Peter Otten wrote: >>Ron Adam wrote:work | |- foo.py # print "foo not in bar" | - bar | |- __init__.py | |- foo.py # print "foo in bar" | |- absolute.py # from __futer__ import absolute_import | # import foo | - relative.py # import foo >>>(4) >>>C:\work\bar>python -c "import bar.absolute"foo in bar >>>(5) >>> >>import bar.absolutefoo in bar (4) and (5) are misconfigurations, IMHO. But it's a very common configuration. So it will most likely cause problems for someone. From what I understand these will probably do what I want in python 2.6, which is either import the foo not in bar, or give an error if foo not in bar doesn't exist instead of importing foo in bar. >>in an absolute-import-as-default environment;import foowould always be an absolute import. But what is the precise meaning of "absolute import" in this un-dottedcase?Currently it is: "A module or package that is located in sys.path or the current directory".But maybe a narrower interpretation may be better?: "A module or package found in sys.path, or the current directory and is *not* in a package." You'd have to add a not-in-package test to every import - I don't think it's worth the effort. No, you only need to test the (first) module you explicitly run is in a package. For any imports after that, the absolute import code can exclude any of the package directories for un-dotted top level absolute imports. It may be a performance net gain because there is less disk searching. >All in all, what I'm suggesting is that the concept of a package (type) bemuchstronger than that of a search path or current directory. And that thiswould add a fair amount of reliability to the language. I think if you go that way, ultimately you will need some kind of package registry. I expect that the new import behaviour will get you 99 percent there with one percent of the hassle. But we will see... It won't need a registry. Check the python-ideas list for further discussion on this. Cheers, Ron Feb 9 '07 #8

### This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.