Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!not-for-mail
From: Dan Stromberg <drsalists@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.python
Subject: Re: "from module import data; print(data)" vs "import module; print(module.data)"
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 08:15:16 -0800
Lines: 36
Message-ID: <mailman.128.1456416920.20994.python-list@python.org>
References: <mailman.111.1456362461.20994.python-list@python.org> <56ce7762$0$11100$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
In-Reply-To: <56ce7762$0$11100$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>
Precedence: list
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:103504

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 7:39 PM, Steven D'Aprano
<steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote:
> On Thursday 25 February 2016 12:07, Dan Stromberg wrote:
>
>> Could people please compare and contrast the two ways of doing imports
>> in the Subject line?
>
> from module import data; print(data)
>
> import module; print(module.data)

>> Is it fair to say that the former increases the surface area of your
>> shared (sometimes mutable) state?
>
> No, I can't say that it is. If anything, the opposite is the case: it
> decreases the surface area, because `data` now is local to the importing
> (not imported) module. Rebinding data will not affect anything else.

> There are two scenarios (`from module import...` versus `import ...`), each
> with two cases: mutation, and rebinding:
>
> (1) from module import data
>
> (a) Mutation (only applies to mutable data like lists, dicts etc)
>
> In place mutation affects everything relying on module.data regardless of
> how or where it is accessed.

We have some scenarios where "data" is an instance of a class, and we
need to monkey patch it for unit testing.

My intuition is telling me that "module.data; data.mutate()" would be
easier to monkey patch in a way that all modules will see.  Is that
fair to say?

Thanks.