>> 'next sentence' is the operative piece. I think that if the bit
>> about placement was moved to the end of the paragraph the whole
>> thing would be more readable and I wouldn't have stumbled on it.
>
> If it had meant "the imported module's names" or indeed "the imported
> modules' names", I
On 15/09/17 18:05, Tobiah wrote:
On 09/15/2017 09:25 AM, Stefan Ram wrote:> Tobiah writes:
Modules can import other modules. It is customary but not
required to place all import statements at the beginning
of a module (or script, for that matter). The imported
mo
On 09/15/2017 09:25 AM, Stefan Ram wrote:> Tobiah writes:
>> Modules can import other modules. It is customary but not
>> required to place all import statements at the beginning
>> of a module (or script, for that matter). The imported
>> module names are placed
> ..
>> When i
Re-reading I guess the plural refers to the multiple modules
referenced in the first sentence. It was probably written that
way before someone inserted the bit about the customary placement,
which greatly clouds the connection.
On 09/15/2017 09:03 AM, Tobiah wrote:
> In this doc:
>
> ht
On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 2:03 AM, Tobiah wrote:
> It seems that if the statement read:
>
> the imported module's name (singular) is placed in the
> importing module's global symbol table.
>
> That it would be more accurate.
That implies that you only import one module. Consider:
i
In this doc:
https://docs.python.org/2/tutorial/modules.html
Near the top it states:
Modules can import other modules. It is customary but not
required to place all import statements at the beginning
of a module (or script, for that matter). The imported
m
