import concerns (was Re: Historical language survey)

[Bruno Medeiros]

Walter Bright wrote:
> Walter Bright wrote:
>>>> What can also be done is extend the import declaration to allow the 
>>>> .'s to continue so that specific symbols can be imported.
>>>
>>> Now that would be great. I believe selective-importing (as an option) 
>>> would be a boon in a number of ways ~ and would resolve this issue 
>>> quite elegantly.
>>
>> I like this one better, too.
> 
> There's another way - have a different kind of import declaration, say, 
> precede it with static:
> 
>     static import foo;
> 
> which will make the symbols in foo available, but only if they are 
> explicitly qualified. Then one could access bar in foo by either:
> 
>     foo.bar();
> 
> or:
> 
>     alias foo.bar bar;
>     bar();
> 
> but not:
> 
>     bar();    // error, undefined symbol
> 
> The advantage of this is it is a bit more flexible and more consistent 
> with the way the rest of D lookups work.

Ah, the FQN import I (and others) have been waiting for. My comment:
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/28423.html

[quote:]
PROPOSAL 1, FQN import:
Introduce a new statement, identical to import, :
   fqnimport <module>;
except that it only brings the <module> entity into scope. It's child
entities will have to be accessed trough the <module> entity (by FQN then).
The keyword for this statement could be "fqnimport", or perhaps a
shorter but still descriptive name like "mimport", "importm" (for import
module)? [Right now I'm favoring "importm" but am not decided;]
[/quote]

I must contested the proposed named by Walter. "static import" seems a 
pretty crappy name, there is nothing "static" about it. Do we have to 
recycle existing keywords? I'm not very much into this phobia of 
introducing new keywords. You didn't have a problem introducing 
"scope"... :P


-- 
Bruno Medeiros - CS/E student
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?BrunoMedeiros#D