Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!not-for-mail
From: Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.python
Subject: Re: "from module import data; print(data)" vs "import module; print(module.data)"
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 10:38:36 +1100
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <mailman.138.1456443525.20994.python-list@python.org>
References: <mailman.111.1456362461.20994.python-list@python.org> <535b56b5-f836-4cd6-ae95-33f18004c90b@googlegroups.com> <dj9d10F4gciU1@mid.individual.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cancel-Lock: sha1://+WkaI/Ltex6lHe047o+azz88w=
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.4 (gnu/linux)
Precedence: list
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:103523

Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> writes:

> sohcahtoa82@gmail.com wrote:
> > Now, I've noticed people talking about importing os.path.  Is there any
> > reason to use "import os.path" rather than "import os"?  Both of them will
> > still put the "os" module into the global namespace.
>
> In the case of os.path it doesn't matter, because the
> os module imports the appropriate path module automatically.

My position is that behaviour violates one of the principles of the Zen
of Python: “Special cases aren't special enough to break the rules.”

> But in general, importing a package won't necessarily
> import submodules under it, so sometimes you need to
> import somepackage.somemodule explicitly.

Because that's normally the case, I choose not to rely on that special
behaviour of ‘os’. If I need ‘os.path’, I import it explicitly so no
reader needs to guess::

    import os
    import os.path

-- 
 \       “Crime is contagious… if the government becomes a lawbreaker, |
  `\          it breeds contempt for the law.” —Justice Louis Brandeis |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney