The new, new phobos sneak preview

[Bill Baxter]

On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 11:06 PM, Christopher Wright <dhasenan at gmail.com> wrote:
> Bill Baxter wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 5:50 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu
>> <SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Lars Kyllingstad wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I think isInfinite!() should be called isInfiniteRange!(). The current
>>>> name is, in my opinion, too general.
>>>
>>> I'm undecided about this (and similar cases). isInfinite sits inside
>>> std.range, so std.range.isInfinite is clear and std.range.isInfiniteRange
>>> feels redundant. On the other hand, I don't want to use too common
>>> symbols
>>> because then the user will be forced to prefix them whenever they clash.
>>
>> This is one of the big reasons why "static import" by default would
>> have been better than pull-everything-in by default.
>>
>> But since pull-everything-in *is* the default.  I agree with Lars.
>> Symbols supplied by modules should look unambiguous even when
>> undecorated by their module name.  Or you could use the trick that
>> Tango often uses -- make a static struct with a few members.  It's
>> pretty ugly though, if you ask me.  Introducing a static struct just
>> to get a namespace to replace the namespace that is already there but
>> gets stripped as the default action upon 'import'.  Ick.
>>
>> --bb
>
> import range=std.range;

Not a default.

--bb