DIP10005: Dependency-Carrying Declarations is now available for community feedback

Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d at puremagic.com
Thu Dec 15 22:19:13 PST 2016


On 12/15/2016 8:32 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 12/15/2016 11:11 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
>> On 12/15/2016 6:53 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>> The document does specify the advantages and disadvantages of lazy
>>> imports, as follows:
>>>
>>> ===
>>> * Full lazy `import`s. Assume all `import`s are lazy without any
>>> change in the
>>> language. That would allow an idiom by which libraries use fully
>>> qualified names
>>> everywhere, and the `import`s would be effected only when names are
>>> looked up.
>>> This would allow scalability but not the dependency-carrying aspect.
>>> ===
>>
>> That would be a massive breaking change.
>
> This may be a misunderstanding. The idiom would be opt-in so existing behavior
> will be preserved (albeit it won't benefit of the improvements).

If existing behavior is preserved, how can it lazily parse the imports?



More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list