PEP 8: How should __future__ imports be grouped?
coding-style, pep8, python, python-import
Solution
I personally separate them. A `__future__` import isn't just binding a name like other imports, it changes the meaning of the language. With things like `from __future__ import division` the module will likely run fine both with and without the import, but give different (wrong) results at places that have nothing telling me to go look at names imported if I want to know more about where they come from. `__future__` imports should stand out as much as possible.
Also, I generally sort imports within a group alphabetically (no particularly good reason for doing that; I just find it has some very small benefits to diffs and merging branches), and `__future__` imports have to be first, so I put them in their own group.
Problem
According to PEP 8: Imports should be grouped in the following order: - standard library imports - related third party imports - local application/library specific imports You should put a blank line between each group of imports. But it does not mention about `__future__` imports. Should `__future__` imports be grouped together with standard library imports or separated from standard library imports. So, which is more preferred: ``` from __future__ import absolute_import import sys import os.path from .submod import xyz ``` or: ``` from __future__ import absolute_import import sys import os.path from .submod import xyz ```