Develop Reference

How to mimic Python modules without import?

I’ve tried to develop a « module expander » tool for Python 3 but I've some issues.
The idea is the following : for a given Python script main.py, the tool generates a functionally equivalent Python script expanded_main.py, by replacing each import statement by the actual code of the imported module; this assumes that the Python source code of the imported is accessible. To do the job the right way, I’m using the builtin module ast of Python as well as astor, a third-party tool allowing to dump the AST back into Python source. The motivation of this import expander is to be able to compile a script into one single bytecode chunk, so the Python VM should not take care of importing modules (this could be useful for MicroPython, for instance).
The simplest case is the statement:
from import my_module1 import *
To transform this, my tool looks for a file my_module1.py and it replaces the import statement by the content of this file. Then, the expanded_main.py can access any name defined in my_module, as if the module was imported the normal way. I don’t care about subtle side effects that may reveal the trick. Also, to simplify, I treat from import my_module1 import a, b, c as the previous import (with asterisk), without caring about possible side effect. So far so good.
Now here is my point. How could you handle this flavor of import:
import my_module2
My first idea was to mimic this by creating a class having the same name as the module and copying the content of the Python file indented:
class my_module2:
# content of my_module2.py
…
This actually works for many cases but, sadly, I discovered that this has several glitches: one of these is that it fails with functions having a body referring to a global variable defined in the module. For example, consider the following two Python files:
# my_module2.py
g = "Hello"
def greetings():
print (g + " World!")
and
# main.py
import my_module2
print(my_module2.g)
my_module2.greetings()
At execution, main.py prints "Hello" and "Hello World!". Now, my expander tool shall generate this:
# expanded_main.py
class my_module2:
g = "Hello"
def greetings():
print (g + " World!")
print(my_module2.g)
my_module2.greetings()
At execution of expanded_main.py, the first print statement is OK ("Hello") but the greetings function raises an exception: NameError: name 'g' is not defined.
What happens actually is that
in the module my_module2, g is a global variable,
in the class my_module2, g is a class variable, which should be referred as my_module2.g.
Other similar side effects happens when you define functions, classes, … in my_module2.py and you want to refer to them in other functions, classes, … of the same my_module2.py.
Any idea how these problems could be solved?
Apart classes, are there other Python constructs that allow to mimic a module?
Final note: I’m aware that the tool should take care 1° of nested imports (recursion), 2° of possible multiple import of the same module. I don't expect to discuss these topics here.

You can execute the source code of a module in the scope of a function, specifically an instance method. The attributes can then be made available by defining __getattr__ on the corresponding class and keeping a copy of the initial function's locals(). Here is some sample code:
class Importer:
def __init__(self):
g = "Hello"
def greetings():
print (g + " World!")
self._attributes = locals()
def __getattr__(self, item):
return self._attributes[item]
module1 = Importer()
print(module1.g)
module1.greetings()
Nested imports are handled naturally by replacing them the same way with an instance of Importer. Duplicate imports shouldn't be a problem either.

How exactly do modules in Python work?

I am trying to better understand Pythons modules, coming from C background mostly.
I have main.py with the following:
def g():
print obj # Need access to the object below
if __name__ == "__main__":
obj = {}
import child
child.f()
And child.py:
def f():
import main
main.g()
This particular structure of code may seem strange at first, but rest assured this is stripped from a larger project I am working on, where delegation of responsibility and decoupling forces the kind of inter-module function call sequence you see.
I need to be able to access the actual object I create when first executing main python main.py. Is this possible without explicitly sending obj as parameter around? Because I will have other variables and I don't want to send these too. If desperate, I can create a "state" object for the entire main module that I need access to, and send it around, but even that is to me a last resort. This is global variables at its simplest in C, but in Python this is a different beast I suppose (module global variables only?)

One of the solutions, excluding parameter passing at least, has turned to revolve around the fact that when executing the main Python module main as such - via f.e. python main.py where if clause suceeds and subsequently, obj is bound - the main module and its state exist and are referenced as __main__ (inspected using sys.modules dictionary). So when the child module needs the actual instance of the main module, it is not main it needs to import but __main__, otherwise two distinct copies would exist, with their own distinct states.
'Fixed' child.py:
def f():
import __main__
__main__.g()

Why can't Python's import work like C's #include?

I've literally been trying to understand Python imports for about a year now, and I've all but given up programming in Python because it just seems too obfuscated. I come from a C background, and I assumed that import worked like #include, yet if I try to import something, I invariably get errors.
If I have two files like this:
foo.py:
a = 1
bar.py:
import foo
print foo.a
input()
WHY do I need to reference the module name? Why not just be able to write import foo, print a? What is the point of this confusion? Why not just run the code and have stuff defined for you as if you wrote it in one big file? Why can't it work like C's #include directive where it basically copies and pastes your code? I don't have import problems in C.

To do what you want, you can use (not recommended, read further for explanation):
from foo import *
This will import everything to your current namespace, and you will be able to call print a.
However, the issue with this approach is the following. Consider the case when you have two modules, moduleA and moduleB, each having a function named GetSomeValue().
When you do:
from moduleA import *
from moduleB import *
you have a namespace resolution issue*, because what function are you actually calling with GetSomeValue(), the moduleA.GetSomeValue() or the moduleB.GetSomeValue()?
In addition to this, you can use the Import As feature:
from moduleA import GetSomeValue as AGetSomeValue
from moduleB import GetSomeValue as BGetSomeValue
Or
import moduleA.GetSomeValue as AGetSomeValue
import moduleB.GetSomeValue as BGetSomeValue
This approach resolves the conflict manually.
I am sure you can appreciate from these examples the need for explicit referencing.
* Python has its namespace resolution mechanisms, this is just a simplification for the purpose of the explanation.

Imagine you have your a function in your module which chooses some object from a list:
def choice(somelist):
...
Now imagine further that, either in that function or elsewhere in your module, you are using randint from the random library:
a = randint(1, x)
Therefore we
import random
You suggestion, that this does what is now accessed by from random import *, means that we now have two different functions called choice, as random includes one too. Only one will be accessible, but you have introduced ambiguity as to what choice() actually refers to elsewhere in your code.
This is why it is bad practice to import everything; either import what you need:
from random import randint
...
a = randint(1, x)
or the whole module:
import random
...
a = random.randint(1, x)
This has two benefits:
You minimise the risks of overlapping names (now and in future additions to your imported modules); and
When someone else reads your code, they can easily see where external functions come from.

There are a few good reasons. The module provides a sort of namespace for the objects in it, which allows you to use simple names without fear of collisions -- coming from a C background you have surely seen libraries with long, ugly function names to avoid colliding with anybody else.
Also, modules themselves are also objects. When a module is imported in more than one place in a python program, each actually gets the same reference. That way, changing foo.a changes it for everybody, not just the local module. This is in contrast to C where including a header is basically a copy+paste operation into the source file (obviously you can still share variables, but the mechanism is a bit different).
As mentioned, you can say from foo import * or better from foo import a, but understand that the underlying behavior is actually different, because you are taking a and binding it to your local module.
If you use something often, you can always use the from syntax to import it directly, or you can rename the module to something shorter, for example
import itertools as it

When you do import foo, a new module is created inside the current namespace named foo.
So, to use anything inside foo; you have to address it via the module.
However, if you use from from foo import something, you don't have use to prepend the module name, since it will load something from the module and assign to it the name something. (Not a recommended practice)

import importlib
# works like C's #include, you always call it with include(<path>, __name__)
def include(file, module_name):
spec = importlib.util.spec_from_file_location(module_name, file)
mod = importlib.util.module_from_spec(spec)
# spec.loader.exec_module(mod)
o = spec.loader.get_code(module_name)
exec(o, globals())
For example:
#### file a.py ####
a = 1
#### file b.py ####
b = 2
if __name__ == "__main__":
print("Hi, this is b.py")
#### file main.py ####
# assuming you have `include` in scope
include("a.py", __name__)
print(a)
include("b.py", __name__)
print(b)
the output will be:
1
Hi, this is b.py
2

Python namespaces: How to make unique objects accessible in other modules?

I am writing a moderate-sized (a few KLOC) PyQt app. I started out writing it in nice modules for ease of comprehension but I am foundering on the rules of Python namespaces. At several points it is important to instantiate just one object of a class as a resource for other code.
For example: an object that represents Aspell attached as a subprocess, offering a check(word) method. Another example: the app features a single QTextEdit and other code needs to call on methods of this singular object, e.g. "if theEditWidget.document().isEmpty()..."
No matter where I instantiate such an object, it can only be referenced from code in that module and no other. So e.g. the code of the edit widget can't call on the Aspell gateway object unless the Aspell object is created in the same module. Fine except it is also needed from other modules.
In this question the bunch class is offered, but it seems to me a bunch has exactly the same problem: it's a unique object that can only be used in the module where it's created. Or am I completely missing the boat here?
OK suggested elsewhere, this seems like a simple answer to my problem. I just tested the following:
junk_main.py:
import junk_A
singularResource = junk_A.thing()
import junk_B
junk_B.handle = singularResource
print junk_B.look()
junk_A.py:
class thing():
def __init__(self):
self.member = 99
junk_B.py:
def look():
return handle.member
When I run junk_main it prints 99. So the main code can inject names into modules just by assignment. I am trying to think of reasons this is a bad idea.

You can access objects in a module with the . operator just like with a function. So, for example:
# Module a.py
a = 3
>>> import a
>>> print a.a
3
This is a trivial example, but you might want to do something like:
# Module EditWidget.py
theEditWidget = EditWidget()
...
# Another module
import EditWidget
if EditWidget.theEditWidget.document().isEmpty():
Or...
import * from EditWidget
if theEditWidget.document().isEmpty():
If you do go the import * from route, you can even define a list named __all__ in your modules with a list of the names (as strings) of all the objects you want your module to export to *. So if you wanted only theEditWidget to be exported, you could do:
# Module EditWidget.py
__all__ = ["theEditWidget"]
theEditWidget = EditWidget()
...

It turns out the answer is simpler than I thought. As I noted in the question, the main module can add names to an imported module. And any code can add members to an object. So the simple way to create an inter-module communication area is to create a very basic object in the main, say IMC (for inter-module communicator) and assign to it as members, anything that should be available to other modules:
IMC.special = A.thingy()
IMC.important_global_constant = 0x0001
etc. After importing any module, just assign IMC to it:
import B
B.IMC = IMC
Now, this is probably not the greatest idea from a software design standpoint. If you just limit IMC to holding named constants, it acts like a C header file. If it's just to give access to singular resources, it's like a link extern. But because of Python's liberal rules, code in any module can modify or add members to IMC. Used in an undisciplined way, "who changed that" could be a debugging issue. If there are multiple processes, race conditions are a danger.

At several points it is important to instantiate just one object of a class as a resource for other code.
Instead of trying to create some sort of singleton factory, can you not create the single-use object somewhere between the main point of entry for the program and instantiating the object that needs it? The single-use object can just be passed as a parameter to the other object. Logically, then, you won't create the single-use object more than once.
For example:
def main(...):
aspell_instance = ...
myapp = MyAppClass(aspell_instance)
or...
class SomeWidget(...):
def __init__(self, edit_widget):
self.edit_widget = edit_widget
def onSomeEvent(self, ...):
if self.edit_widget.document().isEmpty():
....
I don't know if that's clear enough, or if it's applicable to your situation. But to be honest, the only time I've found I can't do this is in a CherryPy-based webserver, where the points of entry were pretty much everywhere.

How to make a cross-module variable?

The __debug__ variable is handy in part because it affects every module. If I want to create another variable that works the same way, how would I do it?
The variable (let's be original and call it 'foo') doesn't have to be truly global, in the sense that if I change foo in one module, it is updated in others. I'd be fine if I could set foo before importing other modules and then they would see the same value for it.

If you need a global cross-module variable maybe just simple global module-level variable will suffice.
a.py:
var = 1
b.py:
import a
print a.var
import c
print a.var
c.py:
import a
a.var = 2
Test:
$ python b.py
# -> 1 2
Real-world example: Django's global_settings.py (though in Django apps settings are used by importing the object django.conf.settings).

I don't endorse this solution in any way, shape or form. But if you add a variable to the __builtin__ module, it will be accessible as if a global from any other module that includes __builtin__ -- which is all of them, by default.
a.py contains
print foo
b.py contains
import __builtin__
__builtin__.foo = 1
import a
The result is that "1" is printed.
Edit: The __builtin__ module is available as the local symbol __builtins__ -- that's the reason for the discrepancy between two of these answers. Also note that __builtin__ has been renamed to builtins in python3.

I believe that there are plenty of circumstances in which it does make sense and it simplifies programming to have some globals that are known across several (tightly coupled) modules. In this spirit, I would like to elaborate a bit on the idea of having a module of globals which is imported by those modules which need to reference them.
When there is only one such module, I name it "g". In it, I assign default values for every variable I intend to treat as global. In each module that uses any of them, I do not use "from g import var", as this only results in a local variable which is initialized from g only at the time of the import. I make most references in the form g.var, and the "g." serves as a constant reminder that I am dealing with a variable that is potentially accessible to other modules.
If the value of such a global variable is to be used frequently in some function in a module, then that function can make a local copy: var = g.var. However, it is important to realize that assignments to var are local, and global g.var cannot be updated without referencing g.var explicitly in an assignment.
Note that you can also have multiple such globals modules shared by different subsets of your modules to keep things a little more tightly controlled. The reason I use short names for my globals modules is to avoid cluttering up the code too much with occurrences of them. With only a little experience, they become mnemonic enough with only 1 or 2 characters.
It is still possible to make an assignment to, say, g.x when x was not already defined in g, and a different module can then access g.x. However, even though the interpreter permits it, this approach is not so transparent, and I do avoid it. There is still the possibility of accidentally creating a new variable in g as a result of a typo in the variable name for an assignment. Sometimes an examination of dir(g) is useful to discover any surprise names that may have arisen by such accident.

Define a module ( call it "globalbaz" ) and have the variables defined inside it. All the modules using this "pseudoglobal" should import the "globalbaz" module, and refer to it using "globalbaz.var_name"
This works regardless of the place of the change, you can change the variable before or after the import. The imported module will use the latest value. (I tested this in a toy example)
For clarification, globalbaz.py looks just like this:
var_name = "my_useful_string"

You can pass the globals of one module to onother:
In Module A:
import module_b
my_var=2
module_b.do_something_with_my_globals(globals())
print my_var
In Module B:
def do_something_with_my_globals(glob): # glob is simply a dict.
glob["my_var"]=3

Global variables are usually a bad idea, but you can do this by assigning to __builtins__:
__builtins__.foo = 'something'
print foo
Also, modules themselves are variables that you can access from any module. So if you define a module called my_globals.py:
# my_globals.py
foo = 'something'
Then you can use that from anywhere as well:
import my_globals
print my_globals.foo
Using modules rather than modifying __builtins__ is generally a cleaner way to do globals of this sort.

You can already do this with module-level variables. Modules are the same no matter what module they're being imported from. So you can make the variable a module-level variable in whatever module it makes sense to put it in, and access it or assign to it from other modules. It would be better to call a function to set the variable's value, or to make it a property of some singleton object. That way if you end up needing to run some code when the variable's changed, you can do so without breaking your module's external interface.
It's not usually a great way to do things — using globals seldom is — but I think this is the cleanest way to do it.

I wanted to post an answer that there is a case where the variable won't be found.
Cyclical imports may break the module behavior.
For example:
first.py
import second
var = 1
second.py
import first
print(first.var) # will throw an error because the order of execution happens before var gets declared.
main.py
import first
On this is example it should be obvious, but in a large code-base, this can be really confusing.

I wondered if it would be possible to avoid some of the disadvantages of using global variables (see e.g. http://wiki.c2.com/?GlobalVariablesAreBad) by using a class namespace rather than a global/module namespace to pass values of variables. The following code indicates that the two methods are essentially identical. There is a slight advantage in using class namespaces as explained below.
The following code fragments also show that attributes or variables may be dynamically created and deleted in both global/module namespaces and class namespaces.
wall.py
# Note no definition of global variables
class router:
""" Empty class """
I call this module 'wall' since it is used to bounce variables off of. It will act as a space to temporarily define global variables and class-wide attributes of the empty class 'router'.
source.py
import wall
def sourcefn():
msg = 'Hello world!'
wall.msg = msg
wall.router.msg = msg
This module imports wall and defines a single function sourcefn which defines a message and emits it by two different mechanisms, one via globals and one via the router function. Note that the variables wall.msg and wall.router.message are defined here for the first time in their respective namespaces.
dest.py
import wall
def destfn():
if hasattr(wall, 'msg'):
print 'global: ' + wall.msg
del wall.msg
else:
print 'global: ' + 'no message'
if hasattr(wall.router, 'msg'):
print 'router: ' + wall.router.msg
del wall.router.msg
else:
print 'router: ' + 'no message'
This module defines a function destfn which uses the two different mechanisms to receive the messages emitted by source. It allows for the possibility that the variable 'msg' may not exist. destfn also deletes the variables once they have been displayed.
main.py
import source, dest
source.sourcefn()
dest.destfn() # variables deleted after this call
dest.destfn()
This module calls the previously defined functions in sequence. After the first call to dest.destfn the variables wall.msg and wall.router.msg no longer exist.
The output from the program is:
global: Hello world!
router: Hello world!
global: no message
router: no message
The above code fragments show that the module/global and the class/class variable mechanisms are essentially identical.
If a lot of variables are to be shared, namespace pollution can be managed either by using several wall-type modules, e.g. wall1, wall2 etc. or by defining several router-type classes in a single file. The latter is slightly tidier, so perhaps represents a marginal advantage for use of the class-variable mechanism.

This sounds like modifying the __builtin__ name space. To do it:
import __builtin__
__builtin__.foo = 'some-value'
Do not use the __builtins__ directly (notice the extra "s") - apparently this can be a dictionary or a module. Thanks to ΤΖΩΤΖΙΟΥ for pointing this out, more can be found here.
Now foo is available for use everywhere.
I don't recommend doing this generally, but the use of this is up to the programmer.
Assigning to it must be done as above, just setting foo = 'some-other-value' will only set it in the current namespace.

I use this for a couple built-in primitive functions that I felt were really missing. One example is a find function that has the same usage semantics as filter, map, reduce.
def builtin_find(f, x, d=None):
for i in x:
if f(i):
return i
return d
import __builtin__
__builtin__.find = builtin_find
Once this is run (for instance, by importing near your entry point) all your modules can use find() as though, obviously, it was built in.
find(lambda i: i < 0, [1, 3, 0, -5, -10]) # Yields -5, the first negative.
Note: You can do this, of course, with filter and another line to test for zero length, or with reduce in one sort of weird line, but I always felt it was weird.

I could achieve cross-module modifiable (or mutable) variables by using a dictionary:
# in myapp.__init__
Timeouts = {} # cross-modules global mutable variables for testing purpose
Timeouts['WAIT_APP_UP_IN_SECONDS'] = 60
# in myapp.mod1
from myapp import Timeouts
def wait_app_up(project_name, port):
# wait for app until Timeouts['WAIT_APP_UP_IN_SECONDS']
# ...
# in myapp.test.test_mod1
from myapp import Timeouts
def test_wait_app_up_fail(self):
timeout_bak = Timeouts['WAIT_APP_UP_IN_SECONDS']
Timeouts['WAIT_APP_UP_IN_SECONDS'] = 3
with self.assertRaises(hlp.TimeoutException) as cm:
wait_app_up(PROJECT_NAME, PROJECT_PORT)
self.assertEqual("Timeout while waiting for App to start", str(cm.exception))
Timeouts['WAIT_JENKINS_UP_TIMEOUT_IN_SECONDS'] = timeout_bak
When launching test_wait_app_up_fail, the actual timeout duration is 3 seconds.