digitalmars.D - new DIP15: Import of packages
- "Martin Nowak" <dawg dawgfoto.de> Oct 18 2011
- Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> Oct 18 2011
- Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> Oct 18 2011
- Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> Oct 18 2011
- Gor Gyolchanyan <gor.f.gyolchanyan gmail.com> Oct 18 2011
- "Martin Nowak" <dawg dawgfoto.de> Oct 18 2011
- Gor Gyolchanyan <gor.f.gyolchanyan gmail.com> Oct 18 2011
On 2011-10-18 09:38, Martin Nowak wrote:http://prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?LanguageDevel/DIPs/DIP15
What's the advantage of this compared to importing the "_.d" file explicitly, i.e. "import pkg._;" ? -- /Jacob Carlborg
Oct 18 2011
On 2011-10-18 13:40, Gor Gyolchanyan wrote:1. Standardized and guaranteed to work in a similar manner every time. 2. Less eye-trash in the code. 3. Opportunity to improve semantics of importing a package without needing to refactor lots of code.
Ok, makes sense. Although, I would prefer if this "_.d" file wouldn't need to be created manually.On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 3:27 PM, Jacob Carlborg<doob me.com> wrote:On 2011-10-18 09:38, Martin Nowak wrote:http://prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?LanguageDevel/DIPs/DIP15
What's the advantage of this compared to importing the "_.d" file explicitly, i.e. "import pkg._;" ? -- /Jacob Carlborg
-- /Jacob Carlborg
Oct 18 2011
Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> On 2011-10-18 16:50, Gor Gyolchanyan wrote:How do you imagine the process of importing a package without having a dedicated "default" module for it?
I have no idea. What about how it works in other languages that support this, i.e. Java and Scala. At least it would be nice to have. -- /Jacob Carlborg
Oct 18 2011
1. Standardized and guaranteed to work in a similar manner every time. 2. Less eye-trash in the code. 3. Opportunity to improve semantics of importing a package without needing to refactor lots of code. On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 3:27 PM, Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> wrote:On 2011-10-18 09:38, Martin Nowak wrote:http://prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?LanguageDevel/DIPs/DIP15
What's the advantage of this compared to importing the "_.d" file explicitly, i.e. "import pkg._;" ? -- /Jacob Carlborg
Oct 18 2011
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 13:27:18 +0200, Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> wrote:On 2011-10-18 09:38, Martin Nowak wrote:http://prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?LanguageDevel/DIPs/DIP15
What's the advantage of this compared to importing the "_.d" file explicitly, i.e. "import pkg._;" ?
It is a paradigm shift to import a package. Consider import std with a small sensible collection of defaults from std.stdio, std.range and std.algorithm. Or import gtkd and giving the library writer a defined place for startup hooks. Also this scales much better to import packages from non-directories, e.g. zip files or urls. The other keypoint is that you have a simple way to obtain a packages symbol. This symbol can be handled as any other symbol, e.g. apply protection, pass it as template parameter or alias different packages based on a version tag. Most of this is already possible but requires you to import a submodule to obtain the package symbol. martin
Oct 18 2011
How do you imagine the process of importing a package without having a dedicated "default" module for it? On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 4:29 PM, Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> wrote:On 2011-10-18 13:40, Gor Gyolchanyan wrote:1. Standardized and guaranteed to work in a similar manner every time. 2. Less eye-trash in the code. 3. Opportunity to improve semantics of importing a package without needing to refactor lots of code.
Ok, makes sense. Although, I would prefer if this "_.d" file wouldn't nee=
to be created manually.On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 3:27 PM, Jacob Carlborg<doob me.com> =A0wrote:On 2011-10-18 09:38, Martin Nowak wrote:http://prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?LanguageDevel/DIPs/DIP15
What's the advantage of this compared to importing the "_.d" file explicitly, i.e. "import pkg._;" ? -- /Jacob Carlborg
-- /Jacob Carlborg
Oct 18 2011