PEP 810: Updates based on feedback

peps/pep-0810.rst

@@ -246,7 +246,8 @@ The soft keyword is only allowed at the global (module) level, **not** inside
 functions, class bodies, with ``try``/``with`` blocks, or ``import *``. Import
 statements that use the soft keyword are *potentially lazy*. Imports that
 can't be lazy are unaffected by the global lazy imports flag, and instead are
-always eager.
+always eager. Additionally, ``from __future__ import`` statements cannot be
+lazy.
 
 Examples of syntax errors:
 
@@ -273,6 +274,9 @@ Examples of syntax errors:
   # SyntaxError: lazy from ... import * is not allowed
   lazy from json import *
 
+  # SyntaxError: lazy from __future__ import is not allowed
+  lazy from __future__ import annotations
+
 Semantics
 ---------
 
@@ -305,7 +309,7 @@ sequence of fully qualified module names (strings) to make *potentially lazy*
 that module are also lazy, but not necessarily imports of sub-modules.
 
 The normal (non-lazy) import statement will check the global lazy imports
-flag. If it is "enabled", all imports are *potentially lazy* (except for
+flag. If it is "all", all imports are *potentially lazy* (except for
 imports that can't be lazy, as mentioned above.)
 
 Example:
@@ -318,7 +322,7 @@ Example:
     result = json.dumps({"hello": "world"})
     print('json' in sys.modules)  # True
 
-If the global lazy imports flag is set to "disabled", no *potentially lazy*
+If the global lazy imports flag is set to "none", no *potentially lazy*
 import is ever imported lazily, and the behavior is equivalent to a regular
 import statement: the import is *eager* (as if the lazy keyword was not used).
 
@@ -565,20 +569,27 @@ After several calls, ``LOAD_GLOBAL`` specializes to ``LOAD_GLOBAL_MODULE``:
 Lazy imports filter
 -------------------
 
-This PEP adds two new functions to the ``sys`` module to manage the lazy
-imports filter:
+This PEP adds the following new functions to manage the lazy imports filter:
+
+* ``importlib.set_lazy_imports_filter(func)`` - Sets the filter function. If
+  ``func=None`` then the import filter is removed. The ``func`` parameter must
+  have the signature: ``func(importer: str, name: str, fromlist: tuple[str, ...] | None) -> bool``
 
-* ``sys.set_lazy_imports_filter(func)`` - Sets the filter function. The
-  ``func`` parameter must have the signature: ``func(importer: str, name: str,
-  fromlist: tuple[str, ...] | None) -> bool``
+* ``importlib.get_lazy_imports_filter()`` - Returns the currently installed
+  filter function, or ``None`` if no filter is set.
 
-* ``sys.get_lazy_imports_filter()`` - Returns the currently installed filter
-  function, or ``None`` if no filter is set.
+* ``importlib.set_lazy_imports(enabled=None, /)`` - Programmatic API for
+  controlling lazy imports at runtime. The ``enabled`` parameter can be
+  ``None`` (respect ``lazy`` keyword only), ``True`` (force all imports to be
+  potentially lazy), or ``False`` (force all imports to be eager).
 
 The filter function is called for every potentially lazy import, and must
 return ``True`` if the import should be lazy. This allows for fine-grained
 control over which imports should be lazy, useful for excluding modules with
-known side-effect dependencies or registration patterns.
+known side-effect dependencies or registration patterns. The filter function
+is called at the point of execution of the lazy import or lazy from import
+statement, not at the point of reification. The filter function may be
+called concurrently.
 
 The filter mechanism serves as a foundation that tools, debuggers, linters,
 and other ecosystem utilities can leverage to provide better lazy import
@@ -618,7 +629,7 @@ Example:
       return True  # Allow lazy import
 
   # Install the filter
-  sys.set_lazy_imports_filter(exclude_side_effect_modules)
+  importlib.set_lazy_imports_filter(exclude_side_effect_modules)
 
   # These imports are checked by the filter
   lazy import data_processor        # Filter returns True -> stays lazy
@@ -638,31 +649,33 @@ The global lazy imports flag can be controlled through:
 
 * The ``-X lazy_imports=<mode>`` command-line option
 * The ``PYTHON_LAZY_IMPORTS=<mode>`` environment variable
-* The ``sys.set_lazy_imports(mode)`` function (primarily for testing)
+* The ``importlib.set_lazy_imports(mode)`` function (primarily for testing)
 
 Where ``<mode>`` can be:
 
-* ``"default"`` (or unset): Only explicitly marked lazy imports are lazy
+* ``"normal"`` (or unset): Only explicitly marked lazy imports are lazy
 
-* ``"enabled"``: All module-level imports (except in ``try``  or ``with``
+* ``"all"``: All module-level imports (except in ``try``  or ``with``
   blocks and ``import *``) become *potentially lazy*
 
-* ``"disabled"``: No imports are lazy, even those explicitly marked with
+* ``"none"``: No imports are lazy, even those explicitly marked with
   ``lazy`` keyword
 
-When the global flag is set to ``"enabled"``, all imports at the global level
+When the global flag is set to ``"all"``, all imports at the global level
 of all modules are *potentially lazy* **except** for those inside a ``try`` or
 ``with`` block or any wild card (``from ... import *``) import.
 
-If the global lazy imports flag is set to ``"disabled"``, no *potentially
+If the global lazy imports flag is set to ``"none"``, no *potentially
 lazy* import is ever imported lazily, the import filter is never called, and
 the behavior is equivalent to a regular ``import`` statement: the import is
 *eager* (as if the lazy keyword was not used).
 
-Python code can run the :func:`!sys.set_lazy_imports` function to override
+Python code can run the :func:`!importlib.set_lazy_imports` function to override
 the state of the global lazy imports flag inherited from the environment or CLI.
 This is especially useful if an application needs to ensure that all imports
-are evaluated eagerly, via ``sys.set_lazy_imports('disabled')``.
+are evaluated eagerly, via ``importlib.set_lazy_imports('none')``.
+Alternatively, :func:`!importlib.set_lazy_imports` can be used with boolean
+values for programmatic control.
 
 
 Backwards Compatibility
@@ -759,7 +772,7 @@ The `pyperformance suite`_ confirms the implementation is performance-neutral.
 Filter function performance
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
-The filter function (set via ``sys.set_lazy_imports_filter()``) is called for
+The filter function (set via ``importlib.set_lazy_imports_filter()``) is called for
 every *potentially lazy* import to determine whether it should actually be
 lazy. When no filter is set, this is simply a NULL check (testing whether a
 filter function has been registered), which is a highly predictable branch that
@@ -856,9 +869,18 @@ see:
 - `Inside HRT's Python Fork
   <https://www.hudsonrivertrading.com/hrtbeat/inside-hrts-python-fork/>`__
   (Hudson River Trading)
+- `Create an On-Demand Initializer for PySide
+  <https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/PYSIDE-2404>`__
+  (Qt for Python/PySide) - Christian Tismer's implementation of lazy
+  initialization for PySide6 based on ideas from :pep:`690`, showing 10-20%
+  startup time improvement for PySide applications. This demonstrates the
+  particular value of lazy imports for frameworks with extensive
+  initialization at import time.
 
 The benefits scale with codebase complexity: the larger and more
-interconnected the codebase, the more dramatic the improvements.
+interconnected the codebase, the more dramatic the improvements. The
+PySide implementation particularly highlights how frameworks with heavy
+initialization overhead can benefit significantly from opt-in lazy loading.
 
 Typing and tools
 ----------------
@@ -873,6 +895,10 @@ Security Implications
 =====================
 
 There are no known security vulnerabilities introduced by lazy imports.
+Security-sensitive tools that need to ensure all imports are evaluated eagerly
+can use :func:`!importlib.set_lazy_imports` with ``enabled=False`` to force
+eager evaluation, or use :func:`!importlib.set_lazy_imports_filter` for fine-grained
+control.
 
 How to Teach This
 =================
@@ -888,6 +914,14 @@ profiling to understand the import time overhead in their codebase and mark
 the necessary imports as ``lazy``. In addition, developers can mark imports
 that will only be used for type annotations as ``lazy``.
 
+Additional documentation will be added to the Python documentation, including
+guidance, a dedicated how-to guide, and updates to the import system
+documentation covering: identifying slow-loading modules with profiling tools
+(such as ``-X importtime``), migration strategies for existing codebases, best
+practices for avoiding common pitfalls with import-time side effects, and
+patterns for using lazy imports effectively with type annotations and circular
+imports.
+
 Below is guidance on how to best take advantage of lazy imports and how to
 avoid incompatibilities:
 
@@ -1214,14 +1248,14 @@ exclude specific modules that are known to have problematic side effects:
           return False  # Import eagerly
       return True  # Allow lazy import
 
-  sys.set_lazy_imports_filter(my_filter)
+  importlib.set_lazy_imports_filter(my_filter)
 
 The filter function receives the importer module name, the module being
 imported, and the fromlist (if using ``from ... import``). Returning ``False``
 forces an eager import.
 
-Alternatively, set the global mode to ``"disabled"`` via ``-X
-lazy_imports=disabled`` to turn off all lazy imports for debugging.
+Alternatively, set the global mode to ``"none"`` via ``-X
+lazy_imports=none`` to turn off all lazy imports for debugging.
 
 Can I use lazy imports inside functions?
 ----------------------------------------
@@ -1415,11 +1449,105 @@ No, future imports can't be lazy because they're parser/compiler directives.
 It's technically possible for the runtime behavior to be lazy but there's no
 real value in it.
 
-Why you chose ``lazy`` as the keyword name?
--------------------------------------------
+Why did you choose ``lazy`` as the keyword name?
+------------------------------------------------
 
 Not "why"... memorize! :)
 
+Deferred Ideas
+==============
+
+The following ideas have been considered but are deliberately deferred to focus
+on delivering a stable, usable core feature first. These may be considered for
+future enhancements once we have real-world experience with lazy imports.
+
+Alternative syntax and ergonomic improvements
+----------------------------------------------
+
+Several alternative syntax forms have been suggested to improve ergonomics:
+
+* **Type-only imports**: A specialized syntax for imports used exclusively in
+  type annotations (similar to the ``type`` keyword in other contexts) could be
+  added, such as ``type from collections.abc import Sequence``. This would make
+  the intent clearer than using ``lazy`` for type-only imports and would signal
+  to readers that the import is never used at runtime. However, since ``lazy``
+  imports already solve the runtime cost problem for type annotations, we prefer
+  to start with the simpler, more general mechanism and evaluate whether
+  specialized syntax adds sufficient value after gathering usage data.
+
+* **Block-based syntax**: Grouping multiple lazy imports in a block, such as:
+
+  .. code-block:: python
+
+    as lazy:
+        import foo
+        from bar import baz
+
+  This could reduce repetition when marking many imports as lazy. However, it
+  would require introducing an entirely new statement form (``as lazy:`` blocks)
+  that doesn't fit into Python's existing grammar patterns. It's unclear how
+  this would interact with other language features or what the precedent would
+  be for similar block-level modifiers. This approach also makes it less clear
+  when scanning code whether a particular import is lazy, since you must look at
+  the surrounding context rather than the import line itself.
+
+While these alternatives could provide different ergonomics in certain contexts,
+they share similar drawbacks: they would require introducing new statement
+forms or overloading existing syntax in non-obvious ways, and they open the
+door to many other potential uses of similar syntax patterns that would
+significantly expand the language. We prefer to start with the explicit
+``lazy import`` syntax and gather real-world feedback before considering
+additional syntax variations. Any future ergonomic improvements should be
+evaluated based on actual usage patterns rather than speculative benefits.
+
+Automatic lazy imports for ``if TYPE_CHECKING`` blocks
+-------------------------------------------------------
+
+A future enhancement could automatically treat all imports inside
+``if TYPE_CHECKING:`` blocks as lazy:
+
+.. code-block:: python
+
+  from typing import TYPE_CHECKING
+
+  if TYPE_CHECKING:
+      from foo import Bar  # Could be automatically lazy
+
+However, this would require significant changes to make this work at compile
+time, since ``TYPE_CHECKING`` is currently just a runtime variable. The
+compiler would need special knowledge of this pattern, similar to how
+``from __future__ import`` statements are handled. Additionally, making
+``TYPE_CHECKING`` a built-in would be required for this to work reliably.
+Since ``lazy`` imports already solve the runtime cost problem for type-only
+imports, we prefer to start with the explicit syntax and evaluate whether
+this optimization adds sufficient value.
+
+Module-level lazy import mode
+------------------------------
+
+A module-level declaration to make all imports in that module lazy by default:
+
+.. code-block:: python
+
+  from __future__ import lazy_imports
+  import foo  # Automatically lazy
+
+This was discussed but deferred because it raises several questions. Using
+``from __future__ import`` implies this would become the default behavior in a
+future Python version, which is unclear and not currently planned. It also
+raises questions about how such a mode would interact with the global flag and
+what the transition path would look like. The current explicit syntax and
+``__lazy_modules__`` provide sufficient control for initial adoption.
+
+Package metadata for lazy-safe declarations
+--------------------------------------------
+
+Future enhancements could allow packages to declare in their metadata whether
+they are safe for lazy importing (e.g., no import-time side effects). This
+could be used by the filter mechanism or by static analysis tools. The current
+filter API is designed to accommodate such future additions without requiring
+changes to the core language specification.
+
 Alternate Implementation Ideas
 ==============================
 
@@ -1559,6 +1687,30 @@ to add more specific re-enabling mechanisms later, when we have a clearer
 picture of real-world use and patterns, than it is to remove a hastily added
 mechanism that isn't quite right.
 
+Using a decorator syntax for lazy imports
+------------------------------------------
+
+A decorator-based syntax could mark imports as lazy:
+
+.. code-block:: python
+
+  @lazy
+  import json
+
+  @lazy
+  from foo import bar
+
+This approach was rejected because it introduces too many open questions and
+complications. Decorators in Python are designed to wrap and transform callable
+objects (functions, classes, methods), not statements. Allowing decorators on
+import statements would open the door to many other potential statement
+decorators (``@cached``, ``@traced``, ``@deprecated``, etc.), significantly
+expanding the language's syntax in ways we don't want to explore. Furthermore,
+this raises the question of where such decorators would come from: they would
+need to be either imported or built-in, creating a bootstrapping problem for
+import-related decorators. This is far more speculative and generic than the
+focused ``lazy import`` syntax.
+
 Using a context manager instead of a new soft keyword
 -----------------------------------------------------