On Friday, February 23, 2018 00:05:59 Martin Nowak via Digitalmars-d-
announce wrote:
> The main use-case for craming multiple imports into a line is not
> libraries but scripting, examples, and maybe unit tests.
> And indeed the changelog entry could have been a bit clearer and
> easier to grasp.

In that case, I would expect the programmer to just forgo selective imports.
If they care that much about making the code short and/or writing the code
quickly, then that makes a lot more sense than trying to cram as many
selective imports as possible on a single line - particularly when the
syntax for that is hard to read.

>    Go for it and try to find a consensus. I don't think the issue
> is big enough to warrant a huge design and bikeshedding
> discussion.

I can sympathize with wanting to avoid bikeshedding, but almost no one who
has posted thinks that this is a good idea. Pretty much no one likes the
syntax, and they either want a different syntax or don't want the feature at
all. As such, it seems like a bad idea to add it. Not having total consensus
is one thing. Having almost total consensus that it's a bad idea is another
entirely.

> On the other side please note that:
>
> - you don't have to use it

This is always, always, always a terrible argument, because as much as you
may not have to use a feature, you have to deal with code that other people
write where they used the feature. And the syntax of this feature is hard to
read, making it particularly bad when you encounter it if you never use it,
since then you're that much less likely to be able to read it well.

- Jonathan M Davis

Reply via email to