Disadvantage of each form
When reading other people's code (and those people use very
different importing styles), I noticed the following problems with
each of the styles:
import modulewithaverylongname will clutter the code further down
with the long module name (e.g. concurrent.futures or django.contrib.auth.backends) and decrease readability in those places.
from module import * gives me no chance to see syntactically that,
for instance, classA and classB come from the same module and
have a lot to do with each other.
It makes reading the code hard.
(That names from such an import
may shadow names from an earlier import is the least part of that problem.)
from module import classA, classB, functionC, constantD, functionE
overloads my short-term memory with too many names
that I mentally need to assign to module in order to
coherently understand the code.
import modulewithaverylongname as mwvln is sometimes insufficiently
mnemonic to me.
A suitable compromise
Based on the above observations, I have developed the following
style in my own code:
import module is the preferred style if the module name is short
as for example most of the packages in the standard library.
It is also the preferred style if I need to use names from the module in
only two or three places in my own module;
clarity trumps brevity then ("Readability counts").
import longername as ln is the preferred style in almost every
other case.
For instance, I might import django.contrib.auth.backends as djcab.
By definition of criterion 1 above, the abbreviation will be used
frequently and is therefore sufficiently easy to memorize.
Only these two styles are fully pythonic as per the
"Explicit is better than implicit." rule.
from module import xx still occurs sometimes in my code.
I use it in cases where even the as format appears exaggerated,
the most famous example being from datetime import datetime
(but if I need more elements, I will import datetime as dt).
与恶龙缠斗过久,自身亦成为恶龙；凝视深渊过久,深渊将回以凝视…
