Import concerns revisited

[Tom S]

xs0 wrote:
> Tom S wrote:
> 
>> Another downside is that, the selective import using the 'with' 
>> construct only imports these symbols into the current scope, while 
>> 'static import' allows you to access all symbols from the imported 
>> module if you use a fully qualified name. This is as evil as the 
>> "'private', yet not private" symbols in modules.
> 
> While I support improving import (particularly allowing import of single 
> symbols), I think you're exaggerating here. There is actually nothing 
> wrong if all FQNs from a module are accessible (if private worked, 
> anyway ;), as most all of the problems arise only with unqualified 
> names.. In fact, some languages (e.g. Java) allow access via FQN without 
> even specifically importing anything, and I never heard referred to that 
> feature as evil before :)

Actually, i just wish D imports worked like in Python. Then

import foo.bar.baz;
foo.bar.baz.a = 1;

would be legal, while

from foo.bar.baz import b;
foo.bar.baz.a = 1;

would be illegal. As I see it, one of the points about using selective 
imports is the ability to specify *exactly* what should be imported and 
no more. I wouldn't like to get access to the whole module thru FQNs 
just because I wanted a few symbols and were forced to use 'static import'.


-- 
Tomasz Stachowiak  /+ a.k.a. h3r3tic +/