what's the difference between 'static import =' and 'import ='?

[Kirk McDonald]

Boris Wang wrote:
> "John Reimer" <John_member at pathlink.com> дÈëÏûÏ¢ÐÂÎÅ:e9knp5$fk1$1 at digitaldaemon.com...
> 
>>In article <9vh8joe3sla0.1se36qil8397i$.dlg at 40tude.net>, Derek Parnell 
>>says...
>>
>>>On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 06:14:11 +0000 (UTC), John Reimer wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>In article <e9k8bv$2usv$1 at digitaldaemon.com>, Boris Wang says...
>>>>
>>>>>For example:
>>>>>
>>>>>   * static import io = std.stdio;
>>>>>   * import io = std.stdio;
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Good question.  Have you tested these first to see what happens or if 
>>>>the first
>>>>even works?  I think that might answer your question.  Then you can tell 
>>>>those
>>>>of us who haven't had a chance to try yet. :)
>>>>
>>>
>>>There is no difference. They function in an identical manner.
>>>
>>> static import XXX;
>>> import XXX = whatever;
>>> static import XXX = whatever;
>>>
>>>all require that 'XXX' be used to reference members in the code.
>>>
>>>However, if you decide to allow non-FQN all you have to do is *add* the
>>>line 'import XXX;' somewhere in your module and all the FQN requirements
>>>disappear.
>>>
>>
>>Ah... ok. Good to know. I guess we have a very flexible system in place, 
>>capable
>>of accomodating several styles.  And Walter gets to have his "static 
>>import" as
>>well. :)
>>
>>-JJR
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
> No, I don't think so.
> 
> Something need refining.
> 
> Why not discard the sentence 'static import' ? When you need FQN to access a 
> package, just do it.
> 
> For example
> 
> int main(void)
> {
>     std.stdio.writefln("Just do it"); // not need any importing
>     ...
> }
> 
> 

I could only be comfortable with this if it only worked with the 
standard library (things in the std package). And even then, it might 
require that people can't name things 'std'.

Nah, I prefer explicit imports.

-- 
Kirk McDonald
Pyd: Wrapping Python with D
http://dsource.org/projects/pyd/wiki