[issue15720] move __import__() out of the default lookup chain

Benjamin Peterson added the comment: Definitely "won't fix" until at least Python 4. -- nosy: +benjamin.peterson resolution: -> invalid status: open -> closed ___ Python tracker ___

[issue15720] move __import__() out of the default lookup chain

Georg Brandl added the comment: I agree with David. -- nosy: +georg.brandl ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Un

[issue15720] move __import__() out of the default lookup chain

Changes by Éric Araujo : -- nosy: +eric.araujo ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.pyth

[issue15720] move __import__() out of the default lookup chain

Changes by Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis : -- nosy: +Arfrever ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscri

[issue15720] move __import__() out of the default lookup chain

R. David Murray added the comment: I could be wrong, but it is hard for me to see how we could justify doing this before python4, at this point in python3. Adding a warning would be uncontroversial, though. -- nosy: +r.david.murray ___ Python tracke

[issue15720] move __import__() out of the default lookup chain

Eric Snow added the comment: Ah, __import__() is used all over the place in the stdlib. I won't have time right away to put together the patch then. However, here's what I'm planning: * expose builtin___import__() (from Python/bltinmodule.c) as imp.__import__(). * expose one used by the inter

[issue15720] move __import__() out of the default lookup chain

New submission from Eric Snow: When people want to import modules with "runtime" names, they regrettably turn to __import__(), have done so for many years, and likely will for a while. If it were less convenient to use __import__(), fewer people would use it. I'm putting together a patch that