Allow relative imports in the `__main__` module
Nessuno ha ancora preso questa issue.
- Lingua principale
- Python
- Stelle
- 77.2k
- Fork
- 35.9k
- Metriche di merge delle PR
- Metriche PR in attesa
Descrizione
Feature or enhancement
Proposal:
Expanding on https://github.com/python/cpython/issues/109853#issuecomment-2076845977
@zooba, were you envisioning to do this for all scenarios where a __main__ module is exists? I think that makes sense for consistency, but we may want to consider all scenarios to make sure the UX makes sense.
AFAICT, these should be all of them:
(this refers to relative imports in the same directory, it does not cover relative imports to the parent directory)
- Running a package module via
python -m <module>- Relative imports already work here, no changes needed.
- Running a source or extension module via
python -m <module>- Relative imports don't work here.
- Allowing relative imports here feels a bit weird, especially if we were to enable
-Pby default. For it to run, the module would have to be insys.path, meaning it probably installed rather than being provided by the user, so there isn't much necessity for relative imports.
- Running a package module directly (
python <module.zip>)- Relative imports already work here, no changes needed.
- Running a file directly (
python <script.py>)- Relative imports don't work here.
- Running a command string via
python -c <command>- Relative imports don't work here.
- There's no canonical base directory to use as a reference, should we use the current directory?
- Running a command string via the
stdin- Relative imports don't work here.
- There's no canonical base directory to use as a reference, should we use the current directory?
- Running the repl
- Relative imports don't work here.
- There's no canonical base directory to use as a reference, should we use the current directory?
I think 4), 5), 6), and 7) are the only use-cases that call for relative imports to work. 2) feels a bit weird, but it may be worth supporting for consistency.
I played a bit with the code, and the implementing this doesn't seem much difficult. I was able to write a working PoC targeting only 4) with much difficulty, so I don't think that's a worry.
Considering this, do we think it makes sense to make this change?
If so, should it cover all scenarios, or do we want to keep some of them as-is?
For further reflection, how much of an actual improvement would this actually be over the current behavior of adding the current directory to sys.path?
I can't help but feel a bit like we are trading one weird behavior for another.
Has this already been discussed elsewhere?
No response given
Links to previous discussion of this feature:
No response
Guida per i contributori
Apri la guida per i contributori
Come iniziare
- Leggi tutta la issue e poi la guida ai contributi del progetto.
- Commenta sulla issue per dire che te ne occupi tu — evita che due persone facciano lo stesso lavoro.
- Fai un fork del repository e lavora su un branch.
- Apri una pull request che faccia riferimento al numero della issue.
Direzione di ricerca
Inizia leggendo la discussione collegata nell’issue 109853 e confronta i sette scenari di esecuzione di main elencati qui, in particolare i file diretti, -c, stdin e la REPL. Determina quali casi dovrebbero supportare le importazioni relative, quale directory dovrebbe fungere da riferimento quando non esiste una base canonica e se il comportamento migliora aggiungendo la directory corrente a sys.path. Il lavoro è completo quando l’ambito supportato e l’esperienza utente risultante sono concordati prima dell’implementazione.
Scritto dal modello di indicizzazione a partire dal testo della issue.
Valutazione
- Stack tecnologico
- python
- Ambito
- backend
- Tipo di issue
- Funzionalità
- Difficoltà
- 5/5
- Tempo stimato
- Più di una settimana
- Stato di attività
- Ferma
- Chiarezza
- Da chiarire
- Idoneità per principianti
- 25/100