Best way of `using` without bring names into scope?

General Usage
,
1

Is there a way to use a module without bringing its names into scope? I don’t need to extend any methods.

Specifically, using A brings type Foo into scope, but other code already defines Foo, so there is a name ambiguity and I actually don’t need A.Foo. I know I could do using A: x, y, z, but I’d rather just do A.x where needed because I don’t need much from A. The Summary of module usage makes it look like there’s no way to do what I want. For now I’m doing import A, but I don’t need to extend any methods, so that seems like a misuse. What’s the best way to do a Pythonic import? TIA.

2

You’re looking for import after all. Doing import A doesn’t let you extend the names of A. Only import A: some_name lets you do that.

1 Like
3

I thought that import A still allows me to extend methods in A but only if I qualify them like A.x(y) = .... At least that’s what the Summary of module usage implies.

4

You can also do using A: A

I find that construction useful when I want to be able to access foo from module A without pulling in the rest of its symbols, but I still want to be able to do A.bar().

For example:

using A: foo, A

foo() 
A.bar()
5 Likes
5

Wow, that’s counterintuitive! But that’s exactly what I’m trying to do. Thanks!

1 Like
6

No that has nothing to do with import. You can do that with using too. If the module is the only thing you need , just import, it’s the standard and most readable way.

2 Likes
7

Sorry, but what has nothing to do with import? Whether method extension is possible?

8

Correct. As long as you have module M, you can always extend a function func in it with M.func. It doesn’t matter how you get the module. It can be imported, usinged, simply assigned as in M = ....

3 Likes