import concerns (was Re: Historical language survey)

[Kirk McDonald]

Sean Kelly wrote:
> 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?

I posted this proposal earlier, but I like it so much I'll repeat myself:

import B with bar;
bar(); // unambiguous

The point is you can list multiple names from the module without 
repeating the module name:

import MyModule with foo, baz;

And "with" is already a keyword.

-- 
Kirk McDonald
Pyd: Wrapping Python with D
http://dsource.org/projects/pyd/wiki