On Nov 21, 2:36 am, Stef Mientki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I'm not an expert, I even don't fully understand your problem, > >> but having struggled with imports in the past, > >> I've a solution now, which seems to work quit well. > > > That's not very helpful, is it? Were you planning to keep the solution > > secret? > > sorry slip of the keyboard > ;-)http://mientki.ruhosting.nl/data_www/pylab_works/pw_importing.html > cheers, > Stef
I really don't understand what you are trying to accomplish in your article. I strongly disagree with this statement... "A second demand is that every module should be able to act as a main file by running it's main section." ...I am finding the best programs have only one entry point or interface (though some libraries can be useful from outside the package.) Being able to run any file in a package seems like it creates a confusing user/developer experience. What kind of problem makes this solution applicable? Next, you say... "...recursive searches for all subdirectories and adds them to the Python Path." ...it seems like you add every module in your packages directly to the sys.path. Doesn't this destroy the package name-spaces? For example, I have a module called 'types' in my package if I add that to the python path, 'import types' still returns the built-in 'types' module. Wouldn't this collision be confusing? Regardless, isn't putting the package in the right place enough? Please explain. Cheers, - Rafe -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
