Does __import__ require a module to have a .py suffix?

[mrstephengross]

Hi all. I've got a python file called 'foo' (no extension). I want to
be able to load it as a module, like so:

m = __import__('foo ')

However, the interpreter tells me "No module named foo". If I rename
it foo.py, I can indeed import it. Is the extension required? Is there
any way to override that requirement?

Thanks,
--Steve

[Rick Dooling]

Re: Does __import__ require a module to have a .py suffix?

On Mar 12, 11:22 am, mrstephengross <mrstevegr...@g mail.comwrote:

Hi all. I've got a python file called 'foo' (no extension). I want to
be able to load it as a module, like so:
>
m = __import__('foo ')
>
However, the interpreter tells me "No module named foo". If I rename
it foo.py, I can indeed import it. Is the extension required? Is there
any way to override that requirement?
>

I think you answered your own question, but if you want more info:

From the Python Tutorial:

http://docs.python.org/tut/node8.html

"A module is a file containing Python definitions and statements. The
file name is the module name with the suffix .py appended."

RD

Thanks,
--Steve

[George Sakkis]

Re: Does __import__ require a module to have a .py suffix?

On Mar 12, 12:22 pm, mrstephengross <mrstevegr...@g mail.comwrote:

Hi all. I've got a python file called 'foo' (no extension). I want to
be able to load it as a module, like so:
>
m = __import__('foo ')
>
However, the interpreter tells me "No module named foo". If I rename
it foo.py, I can indeed import it. Is the extension required? Is there
any way to override that requirement?

You can use execfile:

foo = {}
execfile('foo', foo)

Apart from the different syntax in accessing the module globals
(attributes with __import__ (foo.x) vs dict entries with execfile
(foo['x'])), there are probably more subtle differences but I can't
tell for sure. It would be nice if someone more knowledgeable can
compare and contrast these two appraches.

George

[Gabriel Genellina]

Re: Does __import__ require a module to have a .py suffix?

En Wed, 12 Mar 2008 18:02:54 -0200, Jean-Paul Calderone
<exarkun@divmod .comescribió:

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 12:58:33 -0700 (PDT), George Sakkis
<george.sakkis@ gmail.comwrote:

>On Mar 12, 12:22 pm, mrstephengross <mrstevegr...@g mail.comwrote:
>>

>>Hi all. I've got a python file called 'foo' (no extension). I want to
>>be able to load it as a module, like so:
>>>
>> m = __import__('foo ')
>>>

>You can use execfile:
>>
>foo = {}
>execfile('foo' , foo)
>>
>Apart from the different syntax in accessing the module globals
>(attributes with __import__ (foo.x) vs dict entries with execfile
>(foo['x'])), there are probably more subtle differences but I can't
>tell for sure. It would be nice if someone more knowledgeable can
>compare and contrast these two appraches.

>
Another difference is that when you import a module, its code is
(usually)
only executed once. Each import after the first just returns a reference
to the already-created module object. When you use execfile, the code is
re-evaluated each time.

The steps done by import are outlined in this message

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.python/browse_thread/thread/7d0ef70c1adc39ac/3882ce35f13ff971#msg_96a590bca5f2be8c

The relevant part (citing myself):

newmodule = sys.modules[modulename] = ModuleType(modu lename)
# constructor sets __name__ and a null __doc__
newmodule.__bui ltins__ = current builtins
newmodule.__fil e__ = filename
code = read from filename and compile it
exec code in newmodule.__dic t__

Apart from sys.modules and __file__, there is another difference, the
__builtins__ attribute. It is important: if not present, Python executes
the code in "safe mode" where certain operations are disabled (and there
is a big performance penalty).

--
Gabriel Genellina