So, the following is an example. Here's a module (called feedy.py) in let's say, the core directory:
import feedparser
feed = feedparser.parse("http://site.com/feed")
[...]
A bad example, but anyway: my problem is in the main script (parent dir), I have to do
import feedparser
as well as
from core import feedy
However, is there a way to eliminate the need to import feedparser, since it's already imported in feedy.py?
Hope you understand,
Fike.
In principle, yes. However, it's not usually a good idea.
When you import a module, you effectively declare a local variable which is a reference to that module. So in feedy you have an object called feedparser, which happens to be the module feedparser, although you could at any time reassign it to be any other Python object.
When you import feedy, you can refer to any of feedy's exported variables as feedy.name. So in this case, feedy.feedparser is the module feedparser.
However, if you change the way feedy is implemented, so that it doesn't import (or export) feedparser, this will break your main script. In general you don't want to export everything you have defined, although it's fine for a quick hack.
When writing a Python module, is there a way to tell if the module is being imported or reloaded?
I know I can create a class, and the __init__() will only be called on the first import, but I hadn't planning on creating a class. Though, I will if there isn't an easy way to tell if we are being imported or reloaded.
The documentation for reload() actually gives a code snippet that I think should work for your purposes, at least in the usual case. You'd do something like this:
try:
reloading
except NameError:
reloading = False # means the module is being imported
else:
reloading = True # means the module is being reloaded
What this really does is detect whether the module is being imported "cleanly" (e.g. for the first time) or is overwriting a previous instance of the same module. In the normal case, a "clean" import corresponds to the import statement, and a "dirty" import corresponds to reload(), because import only really imports the module once, the first time it's executed (for each given module).
If you somehow manage to force a subsequent execution of the import statement into doing something nontrivial, or if you somehow manage to import your module for the first time using reload(), or if you mess around with the importing mechanism (through the imp module or the like), all bets are off. In other words, don't count on this always working in every possible situation.
P.S. The fact that you're asking this question makes me wonder if you're doing something you probably shouldn't be doing, but I won't ask.
>>> import os
>>> os.foo = 5
>>> os.foo
5
>>> import os
>>> os.foo
5
I've done what I shouldn't have done and written 4 modules (6 hours or so) without running any tests along the way.
I have a method inside of /mydir/__init__.py called get_hash(), and a class inside of /mydir/utils.py called SpamClass.
/mydir/utils.py imports get_hash() from /mydir/__init__.
/mydir/__init__.py imports SpamClass from /mydir/utils.py.
Both the class and the method work fine on their own but for some reason if I try to import /mydir/, I get an import error saying "Cannot import name get_hash" from /mydir/__init__.py.
The only stack trace is the line saying that __init__.py imported SpamClass. The next line is where the error occurs in in SpamClass when trying to import get_hash. Why is this?
This is a pretty easy problem to encounter. What's happening is this that the interpreter evaluates your __init__.py file line-by line. When you have the following code:
import mydir.utils
def get_hash(): return 1
The interpreter will suspend processing __init__.py at the point of import mydir.utils until it has fully executed 'mydir/utils.py' So when utils.py attempts to import get_hash(), it isn't defined because the interpreter hasn't gotten to it's definition yet.
To add to what the others have said, another good approach to avoiding circular import problems is to avoid from module import stuff.
If you just do standard import module at the top of each script, and write module.stuff in your functions, then by the time those functions run, the import will have finished and the module members will all be available.
You then also don't have to worry about situations where some modules can update/change one of their members (or have it monkey-patched by a naughty third party). If you'd imported from the module, you'd still have your old, out-of-date copy of the member.
Personally, I only use from-import for simple, dependency-free members that I'm likely to refer to a lot: in particular, symbolic constants.
In absence of more information, I would say you have a circular import that you aren't working around. The simplest, most obvious fix is to not put anything in mydir/__init__.py that you want to use from any module inside mydir. So, move your get_hash function to another module inside the mydir package, and import that module where you need it.
Suppose you have the following
b
b/__init__.py
b/c
b/c/__init__.py
b/c/d
b/c/d/__init__.py
In some python packages, if you import b, you only get the symbols defined in b. To access b.c, you have to explicitly import b.c or from b import c. In other words, you have to
import b
import b.c
import b.c.d
print b.c.d
In other cases I saw an automatic import of all the subpackages. This means that the following code does not produce an error
import b
print b.c.d
because b/__init__.py takes care of importing its subpackages.
I tend to prefer the first (explicit better than implicit), and I always used it, but are there cases where the second one is preferred to the first?
I like namespaces -- so I think that import b should only get what's in b itself (presumably in b/__init__.py). If there's a reason to segregate other functionality in b.c, b.c.d, or whatever, then just import b should not drag it all in -- if the "drag it all in" does happen, I think that suggests that the namespace separation was probably a bogus one to start with. Of course, there are examples even in the standard library (import os, then you can use os.path.join and the like), but they're ancient, by now essentially "grandfathered" things from way before the Python packaging system was mature and stable. In new code, I'd strongly recommend that a package should not drag its subpackages along for the ride when you import it. (Do import this at the Python prompt and contemplate the very last line it shows;-).
__all__ = [your vars, functions, classes]
Use syntax above in package b's __init__.py to auto load things listed in dict. :)
I am a little confused by the multitude of ways in which you can import modules in Python.
import X
import X as Y
from A import B
I have been reading up about scoping and namespaces, but I would like some practical advice on what is the best strategy, under which circumstances and why. Should imports happen at a module level or a method/function level? In the __init__.py or in the module code itself?
My question is not really answered by "Python packages - import by class, not file" although it is obviously related.
In production code in our company, we try to follow the following rules.
We place imports at the beginning of the file, right after the main file's docstring, e.g.:
"""
Registry related functionality.
"""
import wx
# ...
Now, if we import a class that is one of few in the imported module, we import the name directly, so that in the code we only have to use the last part, e.g.:
from RegistryController import RegistryController
from ui.windows.lists import ListCtrl, DynamicListCtrl
There are modules, however, that contain dozens of classes, e.g. list of all possible exceptions. Then we import the module itself and reference to it in the code:
from main.core import Exceptions
# ...
raise Exceptions.FileNotFound()
We use the import X as Y as rarely as possible, because it makes searching for usage of a particular module or class difficult. Sometimes, however, you have to use it if you wish to import two classes that have the same name, but exist in different modules, e.g.:
from Queue import Queue
from main.core.MessageQueue import Queue as MessageQueue
As a general rule, we don't do imports inside methods -- they simply make code slower and less readable. Some may find this a good way to easily resolve cyclic imports problem, but a better solution is code reorganization.
Let me just paste a part of conversation on django-dev mailing list started by Guido van Rossum:
[...]
For example, it's part of the Google Python style guides[1] that all
imports must import a module, not a class or function from that
module. There are way more classes and functions than there are
modules, so recalling where a particular thing comes from is much
easier if it is prefixed with a module name. Often multiple modules
happen to define things with the same name -- so a reader of the code
doesn't have to go back to the top of the file to see from which
module a given name is imported.
Source: http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers/browse_thread/thread/78975372cdfb7d1a
1: http://code.google.com/p/soc/wiki/PythonStyleGuide#Module_and_package_imports
I would normally use import X on module level. If you only need a single object from a module, use from X import Y.
Only use import X as Y in case you're otherwise confronted with a name clash.
I only use imports on function level to import stuff I need when the module is used as the main module, like:
def main():
import sys
if len(sys.argv) > 1:
pass
HTH
Someone above said that
from X import A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J,K,L,M,N,O,P
is equivalent to
import X
import X allows direct modifications to A-P, while from X import ... creates copies of A-P. For from X import A..P you do not get updates to variables if they are modified. If you modify them, you only modify your copy, but X does know about your modifications.
If A-P are functions, you won't know the difference.
Others have covered most of the ground here but I just wanted to add one case where I will use import X as Y (temporarily), when I'm trying out a new version of a class or module.
So if we were migrating to a new implementation of a module, but didn't want to cut the code base over all at one time, we might write a xyz_new module and do this in the source files that we had migrated:
import xyz_new as xyz
Then, once we cut over the entire code base, we'd just replace the xyz module with xyz_new and change all of the imports back to
import xyz
DON'T do this:
from X import *
unless you are absolutely sure that you will use each and every thing in that module. And even then, you should probably reconsider using a different approach.
Other than that, it's just a matter of style.
from X import Y
is good and saves you lots of typing. I tend to use that when I'm using something in it fairly frequently But if you're importing a lot from that module, you could end up with an import statement that looks like this:
from X import A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J,K,L,M,N,O,P
You get the idea. That's when imports like
import X
become useful. Either that or if I'm not really using anything in X very frequently.
I generally try to use the regular import modulename, unless the module name is long, or used often..
For example, I would do..
from BeautifulSoup import BeautifulStoneSoup as BSS
..so I can do soup = BSS(html) instead of BeautifulSoup.BeautifulStoneSoup(html)
Or..
from xmpp import XmppClientBase
..instead of importing the entire of xmpp when I only use the XmppClientBase
Using import x as y is handy if you want to import either very long method names , or to prevent clobbering an existing import/variable/class/method (something you should try to avoid completely, but it's not always possible)
Say I want to run a main() function from another script, but I already have a main() function..
from my_other_module import main as other_module_main
..wouldn't replace my main function with my_other_module's main
Oh, one thing - don't do from x import * - it makes your code very hard to understand, as you cannot easily see where a method came from (from x import *; from y import *; my_func() - where is my_func defined?)
In all cases, you could just do import modulename and then do modulename.subthing1.subthing2.method("test")...
The from x import y as z stuff is purely for convenience - use it whenever it'll make your code easier to read or write!
When you have a well-written library, which is sometimes case in python, you ought just import it and use it as it. Well-written library tends to take life and language of its own, resulting in pleasant-to-read -code, where you rarely reference the library. When a library is well-written, you ought not need renaming or anything else too often.
import gat
node = gat.Node()
child = node.children()
Sometimes it's not possible to write it this way, or then you want to lift down things from library you imported.
from gat import Node, SubNode
node = Node()
child = SubNode(node)
Sometimes you do this for lot of things, if your import string overflows 80 columns, It's good idea to do this:
from gat import (
Node, SubNode, TopNode, SuperNode, CoolNode,
PowerNode, UpNode
)
The best strategy is to keep all of these imports on the top of the file. Preferrably ordered alphabetically, import -statements first, then from import -statements.
Now I tell you why this is the best convention.
Python could perfectly have had an automatic import, which'd look from the main imports for the value when it can't be found from global namespace. But this is not a good idea. I explain shortly why. Aside it being more complicated to implement than simple import, programmers wouldn't be so much thinking about the depedencies and finding out from where you imported things ought be done some other way than just looking into imports.
Need to find out depedencies is one reason why people hate "from ... import *". Some bad examples where you need to do this exist though, for example opengl -wrappings.
So the import definitions are actually valuable as defining the depedencies of the program. It is the way how you should exploit them. From them you can quickly just check where some weird function is imported from.
The import X as Y is useful if you have different implementations of the same module/class.
With some nested try..import..except ImportError..imports you can hide the implementation from your code. See lxml etree import example:
try:
from lxml import etree
print("running with lxml.etree")
except ImportError:
try:
# Python 2.5
import xml.etree.cElementTree as etree
print("running with cElementTree on Python 2.5+")
except ImportError:
try:
# Python 2.5
import xml.etree.ElementTree as etree
print("running with ElementTree on Python 2.5+")
except ImportError:
try:
# normal cElementTree install
import cElementTree as etree
print("running with cElementTree")
except ImportError:
try:
# normal ElementTree install
import elementtree.ElementTree as etree
print("running with ElementTree")
except ImportError:
print("Failed to import ElementTree from any known place")
I'm with Jason in the fact of not using
from X import *
But in my case (i'm not an expert programmer, so my code does not meet the coding style too well) I usually do in my programs a file with all the constants like program version, authors, error messages and all that stuff, so the file are just definitions, then I make the import
from const import *
That saves me a lot of time. But it's the only file that has that import, and it's because all inside that file are just variable declarations.
Doing that kind of import in a file with classes and definitions might be useful, but when you have to read that code you spend lots of time locating functions and classes.