On Thursday, 6 June 2013 at 18:10:11 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
If you have that problem, then you don't publicly import the
entire module.
It's up to the package designer to decide which portions of the
package get
publicly imported. But since std.datetime.Foo would be
ambiguous, I don't
think that it really matters anyway. In that case, you're
simply forced to
refer to it by its actual module rather than by the package.
The only time
that something like this is likely to be a concern is when you
add a
conflicting function to another module in the package, because
then
std.datime.Foo was working and then ceased to work. That's
arguably cause for
being careful about what you choose to publicly import in
package.d, but I
don't think that it invalidates the feature design at all.
Ok, after carefully rereading thread now I understand your point.
Preventing breakage when std.datetime is splited into sub
packages - ok.
But still it looks weird to me that allowing access to
std.datetime.time.Clock via std.datetime.Clock, even though Clock
is defined in std.datetime.time and std.datetime.package is only
publicly importing it, is ok. I guess whatever suits you :))
Also I see we are going with Andrei's DIP route.
How so? What Walter has done is almost identical to DIP 37. I
believe that the
only difference is that std.datetime.package would have module
std.datetime; at
the top, whereas DIP 37 currently says that it would have module
std.datetime.package;
Ach pardon, I am lost in all those DIPs. I recalled that Andrei's
proposed package.d file, those I referred to your DIP37 (which
seems to be summary of Andrei's DIP?) as Andrei's
I am glad Walter is tackling it, because it is really useful
feature, but please take a chill pill and rethink all corner
cases.
We've already discussed this at length. It's possible that we
missed
something, but this proposal is not something that we just
jumped into without
thinking it through first. In fact, it actually took quite a
bit to talk Walter
into the necessity of it in the first place.
Sorry, it is just the impression that this feature was requested
very long time ago, Martin's and Andrei's DIPs were staging and
recently talk by Adam Wilson made it interesting to the D "crew".
If it was carefully discussed and I somehow missed those
discussion or I am not allowed to see them, then I am sorry and
please ignore this and my previous post in this topic.
- Jonathan M Davis
Best regards,
Damian Ziemba
