Tango Style: Struct with no members?

[Jarrett Billingsley]

On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 9:10 AM, Don <nospam at nospam.com.au> wrote:
> Bill Baxter wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 6:58 AM, Benji Smith <dlanguage at benjismith.net>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I've been reading a lot of the Tango source code lately, to educate
>>> myself
>>> on how the library works, and more generally, how to write good idiomatic
>>> D
>>> code.
>>>
>>> As I've looked around, I've noticed a peculiar idiom popping up again and
>>> again that I've never seen or heard of before: struct definitions with no
>>> member fields, only functions. You can see it in "tango.time.WallClock"
>>> or
>>> "lib.common.tango.core.Runtime".
>>>
>>> What's the rationale behind that?
>>>
>>> I suppose it's something like a class with nothing but static methods.
>>> But
>>> then why not just define a module with only free functions? Is there a
>>> hidden benefit to implementing a pseudo-module as an empty struct?
>>
>> It prevents namespace pollution.  In general you don't want to have a
>> bunch of generically named functions like "getTime" floating around in
>> the top level namespace.  A user *can* do static or renamed import to
>> prevent this, but since those are not the default, most users don't do
>> that. In C++ you'd do the same thing with an explicit namespace, but D
>> doesn't have a namespace construct separate from module namespaces.
>> You have to use a struct or template to get that sort of effect.
>>
>> --bb
>
> Those structs date from before static import existed, when you HAD to do
> that. I wonder if they are still necessary?
>

Static import is not enforceable, nor do most people want to have to
write "tango.text.convert.Utf.toString".

Renamed imports would be better, but they are also not enforceable.
(Of course there's the DMD bug where renamed imports are implicitly
public, regardless of the protection you put on it.  Sigh.)