The importlib library provides the reload function that can use used to re-import a library. I have often used this when importing a custom module in an interactive session (e.g. with an IPython or Jupyter notebook). I usually do the following to ensure the re-loaded object is actually the updated one.
import importlib
import mymodule
result = mymodule.fun()
...
mymodule = importlib.reload(mymodule)
I do this because the docs state
The return value is the module object (which can be different if re-importing causes a different object to be placed in sys.modules).
However, I'm wondering
Under what scenarios would re-importing a module "cause a different object to be placed in sys.modules"?
Is it necessary to assign the result of importlib.reload to the original object?
I try to stick to the PEP8 coding conventions. I have a package called main. Inside the package there is a module called time, which has a class called Time inside. Now I have a bit of trouble finding a suitable name for my actual instance because time, which would be usually my choice, is already taken by the module and there seems to be a name-clash if I name it this way.
from main.time import Time
time = Time()
...
if time.status == main.time.STOPPED
Maybe I also placed the constant in the wrong module, but I thought that it would be better to have my constants at the place where they belong to. This is a constant used in my class Time (and the main module), so I can make sure that I don't mix it up with another constant called STOPPED used for player movement. Unfortunately I get an AttributeError: 'function' object has no attribute 'time'.
What would be the best solution here? Rename the constants to TIME_STOPPED and PLAYER_STOPPED and put them into a constants module? Naming my instance variable my_time or time_ or something like this is not really what I would like to do. What's the Pythonic way?
Using the name time is a bad choice to begin with, not just because you already have a module that is named time, but also because there is a standard library module named time.
Anyways, this is not actually your problem (perhaps a clash with the STL module is, but you don't show enough code). The error AttributeError: 'function' object has no attribute 'time' means that main (in main.time) is a function, not module. Your line time = Time() is not the cause of this, but another function object called main inside your executable.
I have bunch of modules to import and run. I have dynamically imported the modules using Dynamic module import in Python. This is in the main code. Once imported, I'm trying to run the functions in the modules.
All of the modules look like this structure
#function foo
def run(a,b)
c=a+b
return c
foo has been imported, I need to say something like bar=foo.run(a,b) dynamically
from this example:
How to call Python functions dynamically. I have already tried the following:
i='foo'
bar = getattr(sys.modules[__name__], i+'.run()')(a,b)
traceback AttributeError: 'module' object has no attribute 'foo.run()'
I'm confused, about the attribute error. The calling functions dynamically example is clearly calling functions.
If you have imported foo already, but don't have a reference to it, use:
sys.modules['foo'].run(a,b)
the_module.run(a, b)
Regardless of what magic made the module come into existence, it's an ordinary module object with ordinary attributes, and you know that the function is called run.
If you always know you'll use module foo, you're done.
You may also need to find the module object dynamically, because the module to choose varies.
If you imported the module properly, under the name you use to refer to it (e.g. foo) rather than some other name, you can also use sys.modules[mod_name].
Otherwise, you should probably have a dictionary of modules so that you can say, the_module = modules[mod_name].
I'm noticing some weird situations where tests like the following fail:
x = <a function from some module, passed around some big application for a while>
mod = __import__(x.__module__)
x_ref = getattr(mod, x.__name__)
assert x_ref is x # Fails
(Code like this appears in the pickle module)
I don't think I have any import hooks, reload calls, or sys.modules manipulation that would mess with python's normal import caching behavior.
Is there any other reason why a module would be loaded twice? I've seen claims about this (e.g, https://stackoverflow.com/a/10989692/1332492), but I haven't been able to reproduce it in a simple, isolated script.
I believe you misunderstood how __import__ works:
>>> from my_package import my_module
>>> my_module.function.__module__
'my_package.my_module'
>>> __import__(my_module.function.__module__)
<module 'my_package' from './my_package/__init__.py'>
From the documentation:
When the name variable is of the form package.module, normally, the
top-level package (the name up till the first dot) is returned, not
the module named by name. However, when a non-empty fromlist
argument is given, the module named by name is returned.
As you can see __import__ does not return the sub-module, but only the top package. If you have function also defined at package level you will indeed have different references to it.
If you want to just load a module you should use importlib.import_module instead of __import__.
As to answer you actual question: AFAIK there is no way to import the same module, with the same name, twice without messing around with the importing mechanism. However, you could have a submodule of a package that is also available in the sys.path, in this case you can import it twice using different names:
from some.package import submodule
import submodule as submodule2
print(submodule is submodule2) # False. They have *no* relationships.
This sometimes can cause problems with, e.g., pickle. If you pickle something referenced by submodule you cannot unpickle it using submodule2 as reference.
However this doesn't address the specific example you gave us, because using the __module__ attribute the import should return the correct module.
In python, if you need a module from a different package you have to import it. Coming from a Java background, that makes sense.
import foo.bar
What doesn't make sense though, is why do I need to use the full name whenever I want to use bar? If I wanted to use the full name, why do I need to import? Doesn't using the full name immediately describe which module I'm addressing?
It just seems a little redundant to have from foo import bar when that's what import foo.bar should be doing. Also a little vague why I had to import when I was going to use the full name.
The thing is, even though Python's import statement is designed to look similar to Java's, they do completely different things under the hood. As you know, in Java an import statement is really little more than a hint to the compiler. It basically sets up an alias for a fully qualified class name. For example, when you write
import java.util.Set;
it tells the compiler that throughout that file, when you write Set, you mean java.util.Set. And if you write s.add(o) where s is an object of type Set, the compiler (or rather, linker) goes out and finds the add method in Set.class and puts in a reference to it.
But in Python,
import util.set
(that is a made-up module, by the way) does something completely different. See, in Python, packages and modules are not just names, they're actual objects, and when you write util.set in your code, that instructs Python to access an object named util and look for an attribute on it named set. The job of Python's import statement is to create that object and attribute. The way it works is that the interpreter looks for a file named util/__init__.py, uses the code in it to define properties of an object, and binds that object to the name util. Similarly, the code in util/set.py is used to initialize an object which is bound to util.set. There's a function called __import__ which takes care of all of this, and in fact the statement import util.set is basically equivalent to
util = __import__('util.set')
The point is, when you import a Python module, what you get is an object corresponding to the top-level package, util. In order to get access to util.set you need to go through that, and that's why it seems like you need to use fully qualified names in Python.
There are ways to get around this, of course. Since all these things are objects, one simple approach is to just bind util.set to a simpler name, i.e. after the import statement, you can have
set = util.set
and from that point on you can just use set where you otherwise would have written util.set. (Of course this obscures the built-in set class, so I don't recommend actually using the name set.) Or, as mentioned in at least one other answer, you could write
from util import set
or
import util.set as set
This still imports the package util with the module set in it, but instead of creating a variable util in the current scope, it creates a variable set that refers to util.set. Behind the scenes, this works kind of like
_util = __import__('util', fromlist='set')
set = _util.set
del _util
in the former case, or
_util = __import__('util.set')
set = _util.set
del _util
in the latter (although both ways do essentially the same thing). This form is semantically more like what Java's import statement does: it defines an alias (set) to something that would ordinarily only be accessible by a fully qualified name (util.set).
You can shorten it, if you would like:
import foo.bar as whateveriwant
Using the full name prevents two packages with the same-named submodules from clobbering each other.
There is a module in the standard library called io:
In [84]: import io
In [85]: io
Out[85]: <module 'io' from '/usr/lib/python2.6/io.pyc'>
There is also a module in scipy called io:
In [95]: import scipy.io
In [96]: scipy.io
Out[96]: <module 'scipy.io' from '/usr/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/scipy/io/__init__.pyc'>
If you wanted to use both modules in the same script, then namespaces are a convenient way to distinguish the two.
In [97]: import this
The Zen of Python, by Tim Peters
...
Namespaces are one honking great idea -- let's do more of those!
in Python, importing doesn't just indicate you might use something. The import actually executes code at the module level. You can think of the import as being the moment where the functions are 'interpreted' and created. Any code that is in the _____init_____.py level or not inside a function or class definition happens then.
The import also makes an inexpensive copy of the whole module's namespace and puts it inside the namespace of the file / module / whatever where it is imported. An IDE then has a list of the functions you might be starting to type for command completion.
Part of the Python philosophy is explicit is better than implicit. Python could automatically import the first time you try to access something from a package, but that's not explicit.
I'm also guessing that package initialization would be much more difficult if the imports were automatic, as it wouldn't be done consistently in the code.
You're a bit confused about how Python imports work. (I was too when I first started.) In Python, you can't simply refer to something within a module by the full name, unlike in Java; you HAVE to import the module first, regardless of how you plan on referring to the imported item. Try typing math.sqrt(5) in the interpreter without importing math or math.sqrt first and see what happens.
Anyway... the reason import foo.bar has you required to use foo.bar instead of just bar is to prevent accidental namespace conflicts. For example, what if you do import foo.bar, and then import baz.bar?
You could, of course, choose to do import foo.bar as bar (i.e. aliasing), but if you're doing that you may as well just use from foo import bar. (EDIT: except when you want to import methods and variables. Then you have to use the from ... import ... syntax. This includes instances where you want to import a method or variable without aliasing, i.e. you can't simply do import foo.bar if bar is a method or variable.)
Other than in Java, in Python import foo.bar declares, that you are going to use the thing referred to by foo.bar.
This matches with Python's philosophy that explicit is better than implicit. There are more programming languages that make inter-module dependencies more explicit than Java, for example Ada.
Using the full name makes it possible to disambiguate definitions with the same name coming from different modules.
You don't have to use the full name. Try one of these
from foo import bar
import foo.bar as bar
import foo.bar
bar = foo.bar
from foo import *
A few reasons why explicit imports are good:
They help signal to humans and tools what packages your module depends on.
They avoid the overhead of dynamically determining which packages have to be loaded (and possibly compiled) at run time.
They (along with sys.path) unambiguously distinguish symbols with conflicting names from different namespaces.
They give the programmer some control of what enters the namespace within which he is working.