This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author andymaier
Recipients andymaier, docs@python, dsdale24, eric.araujo, r.david.murray
Date 2014-07-03.08:43:05
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1404376986.51.0.383746527582.issue10031@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
Hi, I would like to revive this issue, and have a few comments:

1. In Darren's original proposal, I suggest to say "implicit (old-style) relative imports" instead of "old-style relative imports", because that is the term used in the Python Tutorial (the description of the ´import´ statement in 2.7 does not mention implicit relative imports at all).

2. It seems to me that David's suggestion is already reflected in the original proposal. Or maybe I don't understand it right...

3. I agree with Éric's comment that implicit relative imports should still be explained. However, I'm not sure that needs to be done in the FAQ. After all, the FAQ does not explain absolute or explicit relative imports either, and spending more words on the discouraged approach than on the recommended approaches does not seem appropriate to me.

4. I have to say that I'm generally unhappy if I see PEPs mentioned as a specification ("See PEP 328 for details"). I have sympathy for referencing PEPs as background information and for the rationales they usually contain. Could we reference the description of the ´import´ statement for details, instead of referencing the PEP (in both FAQs)?

Andy
History
Date User Action Args
2014-07-03 08:43:06andymaiersetrecipients: + andymaier, eric.araujo, r.david.murray, docs@python, dsdale24
2014-07-03 08:43:06andymaiersetmessageid: <1404376986.51.0.383746527582.issue10031@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2014-07-03 08:43:06andymaierlinkissue10031 messages
2014-07-03 08:43:05andymaiercreate