Re: [PATCH v2 04/38] qapi: Prefer explicit relative imports

[Beraldo Leal]

On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 03:25:50PM -0400, Cleber Rosa wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 01:12:09PM -0400, John Snow wrote:
> > On 9/23/20 9:18 AM, Cleber Rosa wrote:
> > > Relative imports are a source of heated debates, but when properly
> > > used in a self contained module like here, they are very posititive
> > > IMO.
> > 
> > Still? I know they were loathed pre-3.5, but in my subjective experience
> > they behave the nicest overall in the modern python dialect.
> > 
> > What are the downsides?
> > 
> > --js
> 
> I'll just invite Beraldo to the discussion and let the fun begin :).

Nice try, Cleber! ;)
 
Well, relative imports are supported by Guido, so I'm not here to say
different. There are some use-cases.

I'm not fully aware of the qapi context and big picture here, but I
guess that depends on how you would like to use your package/scripts.

Some may say that one "downside" is that relative imports are not as
readable as absolute ones. But reading the 04/38 PATH description by
jsnow, yes, looks like using relative imports is one valid option here.

I prefer to use my scripts as packages inside venvs, and I use to have a
setup.py, with absolute imports whenever possible, and when in
development mode, make use of `python3 setup.py develop` which will
create the "links" for me. 

--
Beraldo