Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by TheMrZZ 263 days ago
Feels like a good feature, with a simple explanation, real world use cases, and a scoped solution (global only, pretty simple keyword). I like it!
3 comments
BiteCode_dev 263 days ago
Agree, they really did their homework, listed edge cases, made practical compromises, chose not to overdo it, reworked it again and again quite a bit and compared it to real life experience.

It's really beautiful work, especially since touching the back bone (the import system) of a language as popular as Python with such a diverse community is super dangerous surgery.

I'm impressed.

link
12_throw_away 263 days ago
Yeah, I think this is one of the cleanest PEPs to come around in quite a while, at least from the userspace perspective. Interested to see what happens after the traditional syntax bikeshedding ritual has been completed.
link
oofbey 263 days ago
Hopefully they learned lessons from why PEP-690 was rejected. I've spent quite a while trying to build this stuff for our codebase and it's never worked well enough to use.
link
dahart 263 days ago
690 is mentioned a few times, including a FAQ note on the differences

https://pep-previews--4622.org.readthedocs.build/pep-0810/#f...

Q: How does this differ from the rejected PEP 690?

A: PEP 810 takes an explicit, opt-in approach instead of PEP 690’s implicit global approach. The key differences are:

Explicit syntax: lazy import foo clearly marks which imports are lazy.

Local scope: Laziness only affects the specific import statement, not cascading to dependencies.

Simpler implementation: Uses proxy objects instead of modifying core dictionary behavior.

link