In article <87hasehvfu....@benfinney.id.au>,
Ben Finney <ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au> wrote:
> Cameron Simpson <c...@zip.com.au> writes:
>
> > All of you are saying "two names for the same module", and variations
> > thereof. And that is why the doco confuses.
> >
> > I would expect less confusion if the above example were described as
> > _two_ modules, with the same source code.
>
> That's not true though, is it? It's the same module object with two
> different references, I thought.
Nope. I modified my test case to print out the id of the module:
('broken', <module 'broken' from
'/home/roy/play/import/foo/broken.pyc'>) 140608299115512
('foo.broken', <module 'foo.broken' from
'/home/roy/play/import/foo/broken.pyc'>) 140608299116232
> Also, even if what you say were true, âsource codeâ implies the module
> was loaded from source code, when Python allows loading modules with no
> source code available.
This is true. In fact, when I first started chasing this down, one
import was finding the .py file, and the other the .pyc file (created
during the first import). I originally assumed that the .py/.pyc
distinction was the critical piece of the puzzle (and went down a
rathole exploring that).
Then I went down a different rathole when I noticed that one code path
was doing "import settings", while the other was doing
"__import__(module_name)", thinking import and __import__ were somehow
doing different things.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
