Import concerns revisited

[Derek Parnell]

On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 23:47:27 +0000 (UTC), Bill Baxter wrote:

> I'm curious...
> 
> Q1: How many D users out there are *opposed* to imports being private by
> default?  Even if it requires everyone to change their code?

I am *not opposed* to the default import being private. It will not break
my code as I already explicitly use private anyway. But even if it did, I'd
have no issue with updating my code to fall in line with better coding
practices such as this proposal.
 
> Q2: How many D users out there are *opposed* to imports being "static" by
> default?  Even if it requires fixing the imports in every D source file
> everywhere?

I am *opposed* to the default import being 'static'. This would add a
coding burden to writers and make reading code harder, as every imported
module member would need to be qualified thus making more clutter in the
source code. There may also be the need for a '!static' qualifier to allow
coders to override the default behaviour. 

I am *not opposed* to allowing coders to use 'static import' if they so
choose to, but don't make it the default.

-- 
Derek
(skype: derek.j.parnell)
Melbourne, Australia
"Down with mediocrity!"
12/07/2006 10:23:34 AM