PEP 8规定:
导入总是放在文件的顶部，就在任何模块注释和文档字符串之后，在模块全局变量和常量之前。
然而，如果我导入的类/方法/函数只在很少的情况下使用，那么在需要时进行导入肯定会更有效吗?
这不是:
class SomeClass(object):
def not_often_called(self)
from datetime import datetime
self.datetime = datetime.now()
比这更有效率?
from datetime import datetime
class SomeClass(object):
def not_often_called(self)
self.datetime = datetime.now()
当前回答
大多数情况下，这对于清晰和明智的做法是有用的，但并不总是如此。下面是模块导入可能存在于其他地方的两个例子。
首先，你可以有一个这样的单元测试模块:
if __name__ == '__main__':
import foo
aa = foo.xyz() # initiate something for the test
其次，您可能需要在运行时有条件地导入一些不同的模块。
if [condition]:
import foo as plugin_api
else:
import bar as plugin_api
xx = plugin_api.Plugin()
[...]
在其他情况下，您可能会在代码的其他部分导入。
其他回答
I do not aspire to provide complete answer, because others have already done this very well. I just want to mention one use case when I find especially useful to import modules inside functions. My application uses python packages and modules stored in certain location as plugins. During application startup, the application walks through all the modules in the location and imports them, then it looks inside the modules and if it finds some mounting points for the plugins (in my case it is a subclass of a certain base class having a unique ID) it registers them. The number of plugins is large (now dozens, but maybe hundreds in the future) and each of them is used quite rarely. Having imports of third party libraries at the top of my plugin modules was a bit penalty during application startup. Especially some thirdparty libraries are heavy to import (e.g. import of plotly even tries to connect to internet and download something which was adding about one second to startup). By optimizing imports (calling them only in the functions where they are used) in the plugins I managed to shrink the startup from 10 seconds to some 2 seconds. That is a big difference for my users.
所以我的答案是否定的，不要总是把导入放在模块的顶部。
以下是对这个问题的最新答案总结 而且 相关的 的问题。
PEP 8 recommends putting imports at the top. It's often more convenient to get ImportErrors when you first run your program rather than when your program first calls your function. Putting imports in the function scope can help avoid issues with circular imports. Putting imports in the function scope helps keep maintain a clean module namespace, so that it does not appear among tab-completion suggestions. Start-up time: imports in a function won't run until (if) that function is called. Might get significant with heavy-weight libraries. Even though import statements are super fast on subsequent runs, they still incur a speed penalty which can be significant if the function is trivial but frequently in use. Imports under the __name__ == "__main__" guard seem very reasonable. Refactoring might be easier if the imports are located in the function where they're used (facilitates moving it to another module). It can also be argued that this is good for readability. However, most would argue the contrary, i.e. Imports at the top enhance readability, since you can see all your dependencies at a glance. It seems unclear if dynamic or conditional imports favour one style over another.
当函数被调用0次或1次时，第一种变体确实比第二种更有效。然而，对于第二次和后续调用，“导入每个调用”方法实际上效率较低。请参阅此链接，了解一种通过“惰性导入”将两种方法的优点结合起来的惰性加载技术。
但除了效率之外，还有其他原因可以解释为什么你会更喜欢其中一种。一种方法是让阅读代码的人更清楚地了解这个模块所具有的依赖关系。它们也有非常不同的失败特征——如果没有“datetime”模块，第一个将在加载时失败，而第二个直到方法被调用才会失败。
补充说明:在IronPython中，导入可能比在CPython中要昂贵一些，因为代码基本上是在导入时被编译的。
除了已经给出的优秀答案之外，值得注意的是导入的位置不仅仅是风格的问题。有时，模块具有需要首先导入或初始化的隐式依赖项，而顶层导入可能会导致违反所需的执行顺序。
这个问题经常出现在Apache Spark的Python API中，在导入任何pyspark包或模块之前，你需要初始化SparkContext。最好将pyspark导入放在保证SparkContext可用的范围内。
Curt提出了一个很好的观点:第二个版本更清晰，并且会在加载时失败，而不是在加载后失败，而且出乎意料。
通常我不担心加载模块的效率，因为它(a)非常快，(b)大多数只发生在启动时。
如果你不得不在意想不到的时候加载重量级模块，使用__import__函数动态加载它们可能更有意义，并确保捕获ImportError异常，并以合理的方式处理它们。
