the first item of this list, path[0], is the
directory containing the script that was
used to invoke the Python interpreter.
If the script directory is not available (e.g. if
the interpreter is invoked interactively or if
the script is read from standard input), path[0]
is the empty string, which directs Python to
search modules in the current directory first.
I don’t really understand the argument that the PYTHONPATH problem can’t be fixed. Python doesn’t have an absolute stability guarantee, and even in the Python 3.8 release notes I see a removal of (admittedly small) API surface over security concerns. Surely the fact that the vast majority of uses of this behavior are accidental (as the article notes) would justify its removal? Especially because there is a perfectly good alternative - simply use . instead of empty string.
The Python environment visualized:
https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/python_environment.png
In the shell, the normal advice is not to put
"."in your$PATHfor security reasons.But in Python,
'.'is the first entry insys.path. Actually''but I assume that has the same meaning.Indeed, though normally not:
https://docs.python.org/3/library/sys.html#sys.path
I don’t really understand the argument that the
PYTHONPATHproblem can’t be fixed. Python doesn’t have an absolute stability guarantee, and even in the Python 3.8 release notes I see a removal of (admittedly small) API surface over security concerns. Surely the fact that the vast majority of uses of this behavior are accidental (as the article notes) would justify its removal? Especially because there is a perfectly good alternative - simply use.instead of empty string.Am I missing something?