import concerns (was Re: Historical language survey)

Boris Wang nano.kago at hotmail.com
Sun Jul 9 20:40:36 PDT 2006


Wow! Thanks!

what you said is i want to say long time ago.

but, my poor english....


In addition, sometime, we want doing something nicer, not only has ability 
to do. it's the different between professional and layman, maturity and 
babyhood.


"John Reimer" <John_member at pathlink.com> дÈëÏûÏ¢ÐÂÎÅ:e8pptc$2acl$1 at digitaldaemon.com...
> In article <e8pk3b$26bo$1 at digitaldaemon.com>, Walter Bright says...
>>
>>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
>>
>>
>>> 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.
>
>
> Walter,
>
> The use of "alias" still looks like a hack.  We know you've always been 
> firm in
> your belief that "alias" is the way to do it.  I doubt that all these 
> people
> would be discussing options here if they were satisfied with that solution
> (which has been around for a looong time).
>
> We know it can be done with alias. Kris knows. We don't think it's good 
> enough.
> That's why this whole topic is being wrangled.
>
> So if you choose to make the internal machinery do it with alias, fine! 
> We just
> want something that's better, nicer, more professional looking! :) (please 
> not
> "static import," though).
>
> While I do agree that D would suffer if you followed the communities whim 
> for
> every little feature suggested, yet I think you are far too independent 
> minded
> most of the time.  The quote in your recent interview at Bitwise -- "D is 
> going
> wherever the D community wants it to go" -- is really a farce.  D is going 
> where
> /you/ want it to go, Walter.
>
> And there's nothing wrong with admitting that.  I just think a honesty is
> important here.  This is your language.  You've made that very plain over 
> the
> years, and most of us who have stuck around have accepted that. You 
> strongly
> disfavour committees and bureaucracy, which is completely understandable; 
> but,
> your over-protectiveness and fear of them may be doing the same sort of 
> damage
> on the opposite end of the spectrum.
>
> Don't take this wrong:  I'm very thankful about all you've done with D; I 
> just
> get a little frustrated at how hard you are to convince of anything, a 
> trait
> that may do well for you in some ways but probably hurts you so much more 
> in
> other ways.
>
> -JJR
>
>
>
> 





More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list