Nested public imports - bug or feature?

Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d at
Fri Aug 14 13:12:42 PDT 2015

On 08/14/2015 08:57 PM, Dicebot wrote:
> Ok, let's stop for a minute and make sure we are on the same thread
> here. Because you seem to argue something I have never said or at least
> intended to say.
> ...

OK. This is my view: The sub-thread was started with the claim that the 
module system is "completely broken" in a particular way. You gave 
Rust's system as an alternative, but it is (basically) the same thing 
with slightly different syntax.

> So, my basic statements:
> 1. I don't like default D import semantics but I am not proposing to
> change it
> 2. I like Rust default import semantics (requiring module name) more
> than default D one. It is possible to emulate it by turning every single
> import into aliased import.
> 3. Idiom proposed in the first post is based on similar reasoning as
> Rust behavior but is different in functionality (one I find even more
> practical personally).
> 4. Both feel more practical to me than default D behavior and both
> require custom idioms/conventions in D
> Does that make sense?

Not really. It is up to the programmer which of the idioms to use by 
default, and all options exist in both languages.

It's not that important, I guess.

More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list