Related
From the perspective of an external user of the module, are both necessary?
From my understanding, by correctly prefix hidden functions with an underscore it essentially does the same thing as explicitly define __all__, but I keep seeing developers doing both in their code. Why is that?
When importing from a module with from modulename import * names starting with underscores are indeed skipped.
However, a module rarely contains only public API objects. Usually you've made imports to support the code as well, and those names are global in the module as well. Without __all__, those names would be part of the import too.
In other words, unless you want to 'export' os in the following example you should use __all__:
import os
from .implementation import some_other_api_call
_module_path = os.path.dirname(os.path.abspath(__file__))
_template = open(os.path.join(_module_path, 'templates/foo_template.txt')).read()
VERSION = '1.0.0'
def make_bar(baz, ham, spam):
return _template.format(baz, ham, spam)
__all__ = ['some_other_api_call', 'make_bar']
because without the __all__ list, Python cannot distinguish between some_other_api_call and os here and divine which one should not be imported when using from ... import *.
You could work around this by renaming all your imports, so import os as _os, but that'd just make your code less readable.
And an explicit export list is always nice. Explicit is better than implicit, as the Zen of Python tells you.
I also use __all__: that explictly tells module users what you intend to export. Searching the module for names is tedious, even if you are careful to do, e.g., import os as _os, etc. A wise man once wrote "explicit is better than implicit" ;-)
Defining all will overide the default behaviour. There is actually might be one reason to define __all__
When importing a module, you might want that doing from mod import * will import only a minimal amount of things. Even if you prefix everything correctly, there could be reasons not to import everything.
The other problem that I had once was defining a gettext shortcut. The translation function was _ which would not get imported. Even if it is prefixed "in theory" I still wanted it to get exported.
One other reason as stated above is importing a module that imports a lot of thing. As python cannot make the difference between symbols created by imports and the one defined in the actual module. It will automatically reexport everything that can be reexported. For that reason, it could be wise to explicitely limit the thing exported to the things you want to export.
With that in mind, you might want to have some prefixed symbols exported by default. Usually, you don't redefine __all__. Whenever you need it to do something unusual then it may make sense to do it.
I am developing a Python package for dealing with some scientific data. There are multiple frequently-used classes and functions from other modules and packages, including numpy, that I need in virtually every function defined in any module of the package.
What would be the Pythonic way to deal with them? I have considered multiple variants, but every has its own drawbacks.
Import the classes at module-level with from foreignmodule import Class1, Class2, function1, function2
Then the imported functions and classes are easily accessible from every function. On the other hand, they pollute the module namespace making dir(package.module) and help(package.module) cluttered with imported functions
Import the classes at function-level with from foreignmodule import Class1, Class2, function1, function2
The functions and classes are easily accessible and do not pollute the module, but imports from up to a dozen modules in every function look as a lot of duplicate code.
Import the modules at module-level with import foreignmodule
Not too much pollution is compensated by the need to prepend the module name to every function or class call.
Use some artificial workaround like using a function body for all these manipulations and returning only the objects to be exported... like this
def _export():
from foreignmodule import Class1, Class2, function1, function2
def myfunc(x):
return function1(x, function2(x))
return myfunc
myfunc = _export()
del _export
This manages to solve both problems, module namespace pollution and ease of use for functions... but it seems to be not Pythonic at all.
So what solution is the most Pythonic? Is there another good solution I overlooked?
Go ahead and do your usual from W import X, Y, Z and then use the __all__ special symbol to define what actual symbols you intend people to import from your module:
__all__ = ('MyClass1', 'MyClass2', 'myvar1', …)
This defines the symbols that will be imported into a user's module if they import * from your module.
In general, Python programmers should not be using dir() to figure out how to use your module, and if they are doing so it might indicate a problem somewhere else. They should be reading your documentation or typing help(yourmodule) to figure out how to use your library. Or they could browse the source code yourself, in which case (a) the difference between things you import and things you define is quite clear, and (b) they will see the __all__ declaration and know which toys they should be playing with.
If you try to support dir() in a situation like this for a task for which it was not designed, you will have to place annoying limitations on your own code, as I hope is clear from the other answers here. My advice: don't do it! Take a look at the Standard Library for guidance: it does from … import … whenever code clarity and conciseness require it, and provides (1) informative docstrings, (2) full documentation, and (3) readable code, so that no one ever has to run dir() on a module and try to tell the imports apart from the stuff actually defined in the module.
One technique I've seen used, including in the standard library, is to use import module as _module or from module import var as _var, i.e. assigning imported modules/variables to names starting with an underscore.
The effect is that other code, following the usual Python convention, treats those members as private. This applies even for code that doesn't look at __all__, such as IPython's autocomplete function.
An example from Python 3.3's random module:
from warnings import warn as _warn
from types import MethodType as _MethodType, BuiltinMethodType as _BuiltinMethodType
from math import log as _log, exp as _exp, pi as _pi, e as _e, ceil as _ceil
from math import sqrt as _sqrt, acos as _acos, cos as _cos, sin as _sin
from os import urandom as _urandom
from collections.abc import Set as _Set, Sequence as _Sequence
from hashlib import sha512 as _sha512
Another technique is to perform imports in function scope, so that they become local variables:
"""Some module"""
# imports conventionally go here
def some_function(arg):
"Do something with arg."
import re # Regular expressions solve everything
...
The main rationale for doing this is that it is effectively lazy, delaying the importing of a module's dependencies until they are actually used. Suppose one function in the module depends on a particular huge library. Importing the library at the top of the file would mean that importing the module would load the entire library. This way, importing the module can be quick, and only client code that actually calls that function incurs the cost of loading the library. Further, if the dependency library is not available, client code that doesn't need the dependent feature can still import the module and call the other functions. The disadvantage is that using function-level imports obscures what your code's dependencies are.
Example from Python 3.3's os.py:
def get_exec_path(env=None):
"""[...]"""
# Use a local import instead of a global import to limit the number of
# modules loaded at startup: the os module is always loaded at startup by
# Python. It may also avoid a bootstrap issue.
import warnings
Import the module as a whole: import foreignmodule. What you claim as a drawback is actually a benefit. Namely, prepending the module name makes your code easier to maintain and makes it more self-documenting.
Six months from now when you look at a line of code like foo = Bar(baz) you may ask yourself which module Bar came from, but with foo = cleverlib.Bar it is much less of a mystery.
Of course, the fewer imports you have, the less of a problem this is. For small programs with few dependencies it really doesn't matter all that much.
When you find yourself asking questions like this, ask yourself what makes the code easier to understand, rather than what makes the code easier to write. You write it once but you read it a lot.
For this situation I would go with an all_imports.py file which had all the
from foreignmodule import .....
from another module import .....
and then in your working modules
import all_imports as fgn # or whatever you want to prepend
...
something = fgn.Class1()
Another thing to be aware of
__all__ = ['func1', 'func2', 'this', 'that']
Now, any functions/classes/variables/etc that are in your module, but not in your modules's __all__ will not show up in help(), and won't be imported by from mymodule import * See Making python imports more structured? for more info.
I would compromise and just pick a short alias for the foreign module:
import foreignmodule as fm
It saves you completely from the pollution (probably the bigger issue) and at least reduces the prepending burden.
I know this is an old question. It may not be 'Pythonic', but the cleanest way I've discovered for exporting only certain module definitions is, really as you've found, to globally wrap the module in a function. But instead of returning them, to export names, you can simply globalize them (global thus in essence becomes a kind of 'export' keyword):
def module():
global MyPublicClass,ExportedModule
import somemodule as ExportedModule
import anothermodule as PrivateModule
class MyPublicClass:
def __init__(self):
pass
class MyPrivateClass:
def __init__(self):
pass
module()
del module
I know it's not much different than your original conclusion, but frankly to me this seems to be the cleanest option. The other advantage is, you can group any number of modules written this way into a single file, and their private terms won't overlap:
def module():
global A
i,j,k = 1,2,3
class A:
pass
module()
del module
def module():
global B
i,j,k = 7,8,9 # doesn't overwrite previous declarations
class B:
pass
module()
del module
Though, keep in mind their public definitions will, of course, overlap.
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.
It is recommended to not to use import * in Python.
Can anyone please share the reason for that, so that I can avoid it doing next time?
Because it puts a lot of stuff into your namespace (might shadow some other object from previous import and you won't know about it).
Because you don't know exactly what is imported and can't easily find from which module a certain thing was imported (readability).
Because you can't use cool tools like pyflakes to statically detect errors in your code.
According to the Zen of Python:
Explicit is better than implicit.
... can't argue with that, surely?
You don't pass **locals() to functions, do you?
Since Python lacks an "include" statement, and the self parameter is explicit, and scoping rules are quite simple, it's usually very easy to point a finger at a variable and tell where that object comes from -- without reading other modules and without any kind of IDE (which are limited in the way of introspection anyway, by the fact the language is very dynamic).
The import * breaks all that.
Also, it has a concrete possibility of hiding bugs.
import os, sys, foo, sqlalchemy, mystuff
from bar import *
Now, if the bar module has any of the "os", "mystuff", etc... attributes, they will override the explicitly imported ones, and possibly point to very different things. Defining __all__ in bar is often wise -- this states what will implicitly be imported - but still it's hard to trace where objects come from, without reading and parsing the bar module and following its imports. A network of import * is the first thing I fix when I take ownership of a project.
Don't misunderstand me: if the import * were missing, I would cry to have it. But it has to be used carefully. A good use case is to provide a facade interface over another module.
Likewise, the use of conditional import statements, or imports inside function/class namespaces, requires a bit of discipline.
I think in medium-to-big projects, or small ones with several contributors, a minimum of hygiene is needed in terms of statical analysis -- running at least pyflakes or even better a properly configured pylint -- to catch several kind of bugs before they happen.
Of course since this is python -- feel free to break rules, and to explore -- but be wary of projects that could grow tenfold, if the source code is missing discipline it will be a problem.
That is because you are polluting the namespace. You will import all the functions and classes in your own namespace, which may clash with the functions you define yourself.
Furthermore, I think using a qualified name is more clear for the maintenance task; you see on the code line itself where a function comes from, so you can check out the docs much more easily.
In module foo:
def myFunc():
print 1
In your code:
from foo import *
def doThis():
myFunc() # Which myFunc is called?
def myFunc():
print 2
It is OK to do from ... import * in an interactive session.
Say you have the following code in a module called foo:
import ElementTree as etree
and then in your own module you have:
from lxml import etree
from foo import *
You now have a difficult-to-debug module that looks like it has lxml's etree in it, but really has ElementTree instead.
Understood the valid points people put here. However, I do have one argument that, sometimes, "star import" may not always be a bad practice:
When I want to structure my code in such a way that all the constants go to a module called const.py:
If I do import const, then for every constant, I have to refer it as const.SOMETHING, which is probably not the most convenient way.
If I do from const import SOMETHING_A, SOMETHING_B ..., then obviously it's way too verbose and defeats the purpose of the structuring.
Thus I feel in this case, doing a from const import * may be a better choice.
http://docs.python.org/tutorial/modules.html
Note that in general the practice of importing * from a module or package is frowned upon, since it often causes poorly readable code.
These are all good answers. I'm going to add that when teaching new people to code in Python, dealing with import * is very difficult. Even if you or they didn't write the code, it's still a stumbling block.
I teach children (about 8 years old) to program in Python to manipulate Minecraft. I like to give them a helpful coding environment to work with (Atom Editor) and teach REPL-driven development (via bpython). In Atom I find that the hints/completion works just as effectively as bpython. Luckily, unlike some other statistical analysis tools, Atom is not fooled by import *.
However, lets take this example... In this wrapper they from local_module import * a bunch modules including this list of blocks. Let's ignore the risk of namespace collisions. By doing from mcpi.block import * they make this entire list of obscure types of blocks something that you have to go look at to know what is available. If they had instead used from mcpi import block, then you could type walls = block. and then an autocomplete list would pop up.
It is a very BAD practice for two reasons:
Code Readability
Risk of overriding the variables/functions etc
For point 1:
Let's see an example of this:
from module1 import *
from module2 import *
from module3 import *
a = b + c - d
Here, on seeing the code no one will get idea regarding from which module b, c and d actually belongs.
On the other way, if you do it like:
# v v will know that these are from module1
from module1 import b, c # way 1
import module2 # way 2
a = b + c - module2.d
# ^ will know it is from module2
It is much cleaner for you, and also the new person joining your team will have better idea.
For point 2: Let say both module1 and module2 have variable as b. When I do:
from module1 import *
from module2 import *
print b # will print the value from module2
Here the value from module1 is lost. It will be hard to debug why the code is not working even if b is declared in module1 and I have written the code expecting my code to use module1.b
If you have same variables in different modules, and you do not want to import entire module, you may even do:
from module1 import b as mod1b
from module2 import b as mod2b
As a test, I created a module test.py with 2 functions A and B, which respectively print "A 1" and "B 1". After importing test.py with:
import test
. . . I can run the 2 functions as test.A() and test.B(), and "test" shows up as a module in the namespace, so if I edit test.py I can reload it with:
import importlib
importlib.reload(test)
But if I do the following:
from test import *
there is no reference to "test" in the namespace, so there is no way to reload it after an edit (as far as I can tell), which is a problem in an interactive session. Whereas either of the following:
import test
import test as tt
will add "test" or "tt" (respectively) as module names in the namespace, which will allow re-loading.
If I do:
from test import *
the names "A" and "B" show up in the namespace as functions. If I edit test.py, and repeat the above command, the modified versions of the functions do not get reloaded.
And the following command elicits an error message.
importlib.reload(test) # Error - name 'test' is not defined
If someone knows how to reload a module loaded with "from module import *", please post. Otherwise, this would be another reason to avoid the form:
from module import *
As suggested in the docs, you should (almost) never use import * in production code.
While importing * from a module is bad, importing * from a package is probably even worse.
By default, from package import * imports whatever names are defined by the package's __init__.py, including any submodules of the package that were loaded by previous import statements.
If a package’s __init__.py code defines a list named __all__, it is taken to be the list of submodule names that should be imported when from package import * is encountered.
Now consider this example (assuming there's no __all__ defined in sound/effects/__init__.py):
# anywhere in the code before import *
import sound.effects.echo
import sound.effects.surround
# in your module
from sound.effects import *
The last statement will import the echo and surround modules into the current namespace (possibly overriding previous definitions) because they are defined in the sound.effects package when the import statement is executed.
Out of the various ways to import code, are there some ways that are preferable to use, compared to others? This link http://effbot.org/zone/import-confusion.htm in short
states that
from foo.bar import MyClass
is not the preferred way to import MyClass under normal circumstances or unless you know what you are doing. (Rather, a better way would like:
import foo.bar as foobaralias
and then in the code, to access MyClass use
foobaralias.MyClass
)
In short, it seems that the above-referenced link is saying it is usually better to import everything from a module, rather than just parts of the module.
However, that article I linked is really old.
I've also heard that it is better, at least in the context of Django projects, to instead only import the classes you want to use, rather than the whole module. It has been said that this form helps avoid circular import errors or at least makes the django import system less fragile. It was pointed out that Django's own code seems to prefer "from x import y" over "import x".
Assuming the project I am working on doesn't use any special features of __init__.py ... (all of our __init__.py files are empty), what import method should I favor, and why?
First, and primary, rule of imports: never ever use from foo import *.
The article is discussing the issue of cyclical imports, which still exists today in poorly-structured code. I dislike cyclical imports; their presence is a strong sign that some module is doing too much, and needs to be split up. If for whatever reason you need to work with code with cyclical imports which cannot be re-arranged, import foo is the only option.
For most cases, there's not much difference between import foo and from foo import MyClass. I prefer the second, because there's less typing involved, but there's a few reasons why I might use the first:
The module and class/value have different names. It can be difficult for readers to remember where a particular import is coming from, when the imported value's name is unrelated to the module.
Good: import myapp.utils as utils; utils.frobnicate()
Good: import myapp.utils as U; U.frobnicate()
Bad: from myapp.utils import frobnicate
You're importing a lot of values from one module. Save your fingers, and reader's eyes.
Bad: from myapp.utils import frobnicate, foo, bar, baz, MyClass, SomeOtherClass, # yada yada
For me, it's dependent on the situation. If it's a uniquely named method/class (i.e., not process() or something like that), and you're going to use it a lot, then save typing and just do from foo import MyClass.
If you're importing multiple things from one module, it's probably better to just import the module, and do module.bar, module.foo, module.baz, etc., to keep the namespace clean.
You also said
It has been said that this form helps avoid circular import errors or at least makes the django import system less fragile. It was pointed out that Django's own code seems to prefer "from x import y" over "import x".
I don't see how one way or the other would help prevent circular imports. The reason is that even when you do from x import y, ALL of x is imported. Only y is brought into the current namespace, but the entire module x is processed. Try out this example:
In test.py, put the following:
def a():
print "a"
print "hi"
def b():
print "b"
print "bye"
Then in 'runme.py', put:
from test import b
b()
Then just do python runme.py
You'll see the following output:
hi
bye
b
So everything in test.py was run, even though you only imported b
The advantage of the latter is that the origin of MyClass is more explicit. The former puts MyClass in the current namespace so the code can just use MyClass unqualified. So it's less obvious to someone reading the code where MyClass is defined.