On Tue, 2 Dec 2014 15:55:34 -0800 "H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hmm... actually, this gives me an idea. What if we implement a little
> syntactic sugar for this in the compiler? Say:
>
> scope import std.conv ... ;
> scope import std.format ... ;
>
> gets lowered to:
>
> private static struct __imports {
> import std.conv ... ;
> import std.format ... ;
> }
>
> where __imports is an implicit nested struct that gets introduced to
> each scope that uses "scope import".
>
> Then we introduce a new lookup rule, that if a symbol X cannot be found
> with the current lookup rules, then the compiler should try searching
> for __imports.X in the current scope instead. That is to say, if:
>
> format("%s", ...);
>
> cannot be resolved, then pretend that the user has written:
>
> __imports.format("%s", ...);
>
> instead. Sortof like the import analogue of UFCS (if a member function
> can't be found in a call obj.method(), then look for method(obj) in the
> global scope instead).
>
> This way, existing code won't have to change, no breakage will be
> introduced, and only a small addition (not change) needs to be made to
> the existing lookup rules. Then whenever we need "use" semantics as
> opposed to raw "import" semantics, we just write "scope import" instead,
> and it should all work. (So we hope.)
>
> Heh, sounds like DIP material...
i think that this is a great idea! i already love it.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
