Python 3 doesn't need init.py in this situation?

Question

Suppose I have:

src/
    __init__.py
    a.py
b.py

Suppose __init__.py is an empty file, and a.py is just one line:

TESTVALUE = 5

Suppose b.py is:

from src import a

print(a.TESTVALUE)

Now in both Python 2.7 and Python 3.x, running b.py gives the result (5).

However, if I delete the file __init__.py, b.py still works in Python 3.x, but in Python 2.7, I get the error:

Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "b.py", line 5, in <module>
    from src import a
ImportError: No module named src

Why does Python 2.7 exhibit different behaviour in this situation?

Michael B. Currie · Accepted Answer · 2016-01-23 23:17:10Z

10

Python 3 supports namespace packages that work without an __init__.py file. Furthermore, these packages can be distribute over several directories. This means all directories on your sys.path that contain *.py files will be recognized as packages.

This breaks backwards compatibility in Python 3 in terms of imports. A typical problem is a directory in your current working directory that has a name like a library such as numpy and that contains Python files. While Python 2 ignores this directory, Python 3 will find it first and tries to import the library from there. This has bitten me several times.

edited Jan 23, 2016 at 23:17

Michael B. Currie

14.8k11 gold badges48 silver badges61 bronze badges

answered Jan 23, 2016 at 22:30

Mike Müller

86k21 gold badges174 silver badges165 bronze badges

Sign up to request clarification or add additional context in comments.

Collectives™ on Stack Overflow

Python 3 doesn't need init.py in this situation?

1 Answer 1

Comments

Your Answer

Hot Network Questions

Collectives™ on Stack Overflow

1 Answer 1

Comments

Your Answer

Sign up or log in

Post as a guest

Related