Import proposals (Discuss)

[Regan Heath]

On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 23:10:38 +0000 (UTC), Tyro <Tyro_member at pathlink.com>  
wrote:
> In article <optcjo9wna23k2f5 at nrage>, Regan Heath says...
>>
>> On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 23:46:03 +0300, Jari-Matti Mäkel�E
>> <jmjmak at utu.fi.invalid> wrote:
>>> Regan Heath wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 05:37:41 +0000 (UTC), Tyro
>>>> <Tyro_member at pathlink.com> wrote:
>>>>> In article <optcgh6iaa23k2f5 at nrage>, Regan Heath says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --[a.d]--
>>>>>> import std.stdio;
>>>>>> template foo { writefln("Hello World"); }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --[b.d]--
>>>>>> import std.stdio as bar;
>>>>>> import a;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> void main() {
>>>>>>   mixin foo;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I accidently called the template and import named scope the same
>>>>>> thing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regan
>>>>>
>>>>> In this case I assume that you are concerned with conflicts that may  
>>>>> be
>>>>> generated between both imports of std.stdio in [a.d] and [b.d].
>>>>
>>>> Nope. In a.d you can call "writefln" but in b.d you must call
>>>> "bar.writefln", plain old writefln will fail, right?
>>>> So, what does this mean for mixins?
>>>
>>> Are you referring to the existing functionality (sans implementation
>>> bugs) or some specific proposal here.
>>
>> The proposal to import a module into a namespace. In this case  
>> "std.stdio"
>> into "bar", meaning "writefln" does not exist but "bar.writefln" does.
>>
>>> IMO Tyro is right and plain old
>>> writefln definitely shouldn't fail here. It should only fail when
>>> std.stdio has been imported privately in file a.d. But if import were
>>> private by default, then the compiler would say 'b.d(5): undefined
>>> identifier writefln'.
>>
>> All I was really asking was...
>>
>> If module a.d imports "std.stdio" into the current namespace, then calls
>> "writefln" in a template which is then mixed into another source file  
>> b.d,
>> which imports "std.stdio" into a named namespace "bar", can that  
>> template
>> call "writefln"?
>>
>> I suspect the answer would have to be "no". After all the mixin is mixed
>> into the scope of b.d, it doesn't exist in the scope of a.d where
>> "writefln" is valid.
>>
>> All I was really trying to do was raise this as an issue which would  
>> occur
>> (and need a solution) if we had import into namespace 'x'.
>>
>> Regan
>>
>
> As I understand it, anything imported into the global scope (public  
> import) of
> [a.d] will be available in any other module that imports it. Unless of  
> course,
> Walter has finally decided to do the right thing and make imports  
> private by
> default! In the event he has, then the correct and desired result (for me
> anyway) would be to get an error message stating: "writefln, mixed in on  
> ln#, is
> undefine".
>
> Just in case that doesn't make any sense, let me try it a another way: By
> importing [a.d] into [b.d] and by virtue of std.stdio being publicly  
> imported
> into [a.d], you have also imported std.stdio into [b.d]. If imports are  
> made
> private by default or if explicitly imported privately, then an error  
> message
> similar to the one suggested earlier is expected.
>
> I hope that makes sense!

Yeah, I was assuming imports were private .. again .. I really wish they  
were.

Regan