In Doc/glossary.rst, the first sentence of the entry "__future__" is that "A pseudo-module which programmers can use to enable new language features which are not compatible with the current interpreter."

However, in Doc/library/__future__.rst, the first sentence is that ":mod:`__future__` is a real module, and serves three purposes:"

Is there any contradiction of these two descriptions, that "pseuso-module" and "real module" refer to the same module?

And if so, should we fix one of them?

Thanks for review!

I agree that the contradiction should be resolved.

There is an actual `__future__.py` module, which on my system it is at /usr/local/lib/python3.9/__future__.py

But when we use the special syntax:

    from __future__ import <feature>

it doesn't do a normal import of the `__future__.py` module, it is actually a compiler directive.

It sounds like that both descriptions (pseudo- and real) are true in different points of view on the __future__ module.

I have no idea how to resolve this contradiction of the original design of the module. Any suggestion?

Thanks for reply.