digitalmars.D.bugs - [Issue 3505] New: [module] static imports should be binded to the leaf module, not the fully qualified name
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (31/31) Nov 13 2009 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3505
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (16/16) Nov 14 2009 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3505
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (15/25) Nov 14 2009 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3505
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (13/13) Feb 13 2012 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3505
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (11/13) Feb 13 2012 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3505
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (8/8) Feb 13 2012 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3505
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3505 Summary: [module] static imports should be binded to the leaf module, not the fully qualified name Product: D Version: future Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: enhancement Priority: P2 Component: DMD AssignedTo: nobody puremagic.com ReportedBy: llucax gmail.com PST --- Now static imports uses full qualified module names: static import foo.bar.baz; foo.bar.baz.f(); It would be much nicer to avoid a lot of typing to make them bind to the leaf module: static import foo.bar.baz; baz.f(); This removes a lot of clutter from static import and make renamed import almost useless. I do this manually most of the time: import baz = foo.bar.baz; baz.f(); Which is clumsier. This feature would be great specially if all imports are static by default (see bug 3503). -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Nov 13 2009
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3505 Bill Baxter <wbaxter gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |wbaxter gmail.com Maybe something like this could be allowed to mean "import renamed to the leaf": import (foo.bar.)MyModule; Sometimes I do want the actually fully qualified name, like for a module like std.string. Having "string" mucks with the type "string". Or maybe parens around the part to keep: import foo.bar.(MyModule); -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Nov 14 2009
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3505 PST ---Maybe something like this could be allowed to mean "import renamed to the leaf": import (foo.bar.)MyModule; Sometimes I do want the actually fully qualified name, like for a module like std.string. Having "string" mucks with the type "string". Or maybe parens around the part to keep: import foo.bar.(MyModule);I think it's very unfortunate to have a module with the same name of an almost built-in type. Maybe the module can be renamed to std.str; or we can live with: import str = std.string; Another possibility is, if bug 3503 gets implemented, is to leave static import untouched. I think that's even a good idea for backwards compatibility. static import std.string; import std.algorithm; std.string.foo(); algorithm.sort(); -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Nov 14 2009
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3505 dawg dawgfoto.de changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC| |dawg dawgfoto.de Resolution| |WONTFIX It seems that renamed imports are sufficient for this given how much code it would break. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Feb 13 2012
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3505 2012-02-13 11:10:27 PST ---It seems that renamed imports are sufficient for this given how much code it would break.You might want to close bug 3503 and bug 3504 then too, because they were part of the same proposal to rethink the module system. This also was before D2 was considered frozen and there was some place to make breaking changes, now I don't think it will happen until a very major update, which doesn't seems to be very close either. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Feb 13 2012
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3505 I have to say though that I fully agree with your proposals. Only it's a controversial thing and has way too much impact to be still considered. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Feb 13 2012