Improve lazy functionality of `importlib.util`

[dg-pb]

Feature or enhancement

Proposal:

This introduces 4 new functions:

from importlib.util import lazy_import, background_import, eager_import, exclude_lazy

See referenced discourse thread for presentation

Has this already been discussed elsewhere?

I have already discussed this feature proposal on Discourse

Links to previous discussion of this feature:

https://discuss.python.org/t/alternative-path-for-explicit-lazy-imports/104608

Linked PRs

• gh-140722: Improve lazy functionality of importlib.util #140723

[StanFromIreland]

In the future please open the issue after discussion on Discourse, not simultaneously. It seems as if this has achieved consensus there when it is referenced in the issue (note the „previous”).

[dg-pb]

Agreed, this is not how I do things and am fully aware...

But given how quickly PEP810 is moving, I had a sense of urgency for this to be seen.

Please add "do not merge" label or any appropriate measure to flag this situation.

[nineteendo]

Please add "do not merge" label or any appropriate measure to flag this situation.

You can just mark the PR as a draft, then it can't be merged by accident.

[picnixz]

I do not think we should have this issue. You can have a fork with your reference implementation instead and include it in DPO.

[dg-pb]

Having it like this allows to see the PRs diff in clear and standard manner. I would appreciate if you allowed this to stay for a while.

I take responsibility of closing / resolving all of this as soon as it doesn't serve any reasonable purpose anymore.

[picnixz]

You can make a PR against your own fork. There is no need to have it against CPython.

I would however ping @pablogsal and he can decide whether he wants to keep this as another source of discussion

[picnixz]

@StanFromIreland Can you forward this issue to the Discord channel in case Pablo didn't see this ping? TiA.

[hugovk]

Pablo has enough on his plate shepherding his own PEP, so I'll close this (and the PR). We can re-open if and when the time comes.

Agreed, this is not how I do things and am fully aware...

Let's stick to the normal process and continue the discussion to build consensus at https://discuss.python.org/t/alternative-path-for-explicit-lazy-imports/104608.

Having this extra issue and PR will only split the discussion, making it harder to follow.

We don't want draft PRs for every Discuss thread idea. Instead, you can:

• create a PR on your own fork, as suggested
• or link to a commit (dg-pb@f5ef93a)
• or link to a diff (main...dg-pb:cpython:lazy_import)
• or link to a branch (https://github.com/dg-pb/cpython/tree/lazy_import)

We can compare PEP 810 and its discussion, there's no issue or PR yet, but it does link to a branch (https://github.com/LazyImportsCabal/cpython/tree/lazy).