import concerns (was Re: Historical language survey)

[Sean Kelly]

Walter Bright wrote:
> Kris wrote:
>> Er, that really doesn't work at all. Please ignore what I said a few 
>> minutes ago
>> regarding this option (I really should get some sleep instead).
>> The problem here is that, for the proposed static imports, everything 
>> must be
>> fully-qualified with the /original import name/, and that's just plain 
>> awful for
>> long import names. The "import as" allows one to give it a nice short 
>> name
>> instead.
> 
> Alias also works fine for making substitutes for long, awkward names:
> 
> import x.y.mod;
> alias x.y.mod t;
> 
> x.y.mod.foo();    // works
> t.foo();    // also works

Yup.  'as' would just be a convenience and potentially add a slight bit 
of clarity.  Though I'll admit to sort of liking Kris' alternate 
interpretation where the alias prefix isn't optional.

>> And, I still think the selective-import is the superior solution anyway.
> 
> Semantically, it isn't any different. It would even be implemented 
> internally using the 'alias' machinery.

     module A;

     void foo() {}
     void bar() {}

     module B;

     void bar() {}

     module main;

     import A.foo;
     import B.bar;

     foo();
     bar(); // unambiguous

So not strictly the same, unless the proposal also involved always using 
a namespace qualifier?


Sean