Re: Why do directly imported variables behave differently than those attached to imported module?

References	<d8d1d20e-2edd-49e5-917c-f338ef35006f@l18g2000yql.googlegroups.com> <BANLkTikT3qeeMAToUhO7GDrve5fAJ_+vFg@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTik1bNumywuwMiQHPS6kTsf7ig+3Pw@mail.gmail.com>
Date	2011-05-03 15:11 -0700
Subject	Re: Why do directly imported variables behave differently than those attached to imported module?
From	Chris Rebert <clp2@rebertia.com>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.python
Message-ID	<mailman.1129.1304460710.9059.python-list@python.org> (permalink)

Show all headers | View raw

On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 2:47 PM, Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 2:57 AM, Chris Rebert <clp2@rebertia.com> wrote:
>> from foo import *
>>
>> can be thought of as essentially doing:
>>
>> import foo
>> set = foo.set
>> var = foo.var
>> del foo
>
> Here's a side point. What types will hold a reference to the enclosing
> module (or at least its dictionary)? Would it be possible to use a
> from import to load a module, then "lose" the module even though
> you're using objects from it?
>
> I am guessing that a function or class will hold such a reference,
> because otherwise it would be a bit awkward for them to use any sort
> of module-level state. Or do they not, and instead go look for their
> module in sys.modules?

some_python_function.__globals__ is the exact reference you postulated.
Classes don't seem to hold such references; their methods do though
(by virtue of being function objects), which makes sense.

Cheers,
Chris
--
http://rebertia.com

Back to comp.lang.python | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar

Thread

csiph-web