import concerns (was Re: Historical language survey)

[Lars Ivar Igesund]

Walter Bright wrote:

> John Reimer wrote:
>> The use of "alias" still looks like a hack.  We know you've always been
>> firm in
>> your belief that "alias" is the way to do it.  I doubt that all these
>> people would be discussing options here if they were satisfied with that
>> solution (which has been around for a looong time).
>> 
>> We know it can be done with alias. Kris knows. We don't think it's good
>> enough. That's why this whole topic is being wrangled.
>> 
>> So if you choose to make the internal machinery do it with alias, fine! 
>> We just want something that's better, nicer, more professional looking!
>> :) (please not "static import," though).
> 
> What I don't get is what is "unprofessional" or hackish about alias? Is
> it (as I posted to Kris) that it looks too much like #define?

I personally don't like it myself, first of all it is not a natural word for
me (I don't have English as my mother tongue, might very well be the
reason), but my understanding of the word make it very unlikely to me that
it actually _do_ something, it should just give something a different name.
Using it for anything else (pulling something from one namespace to
another, for instance when subclassing), or for making namespaces, is to me
the most unintuitive thing I've ever come across in a programming language
(I don't count COBOL here ...). I actually hate it :)

-- 
Lars Ivar Igesund
blog at http://larsivi.net
DSource & #D: larsivi