On 08/14/2015 08:57 PM, Dicebot wrote:
Ok, let's stop for a minute and make sure we are on the same thread here. Because you seem to argue something I have never said or at least intended to say. ...
OK. This is my view: The sub-thread was started with the claim that the module system is "completely broken" in a particular way. You gave Rust's system as an alternative, but it is (basically) the same thing with slightly different syntax.
So, my basic statements: 1. I don't like default D import semantics but I am not proposing to change it 2. I like Rust default import semantics (requiring module name) more than default D one. It is possible to emulate it by turning every single import into aliased import. 3. Idiom proposed in the first post is based on similar reasoning as Rust behavior but is different in functionality (one I find even more practical personally). 4. Both feel more practical to me than default D behavior and both require custom idioms/conventions in D Does that make sense?
Not really. It is up to the programmer which of the idioms to use by default, and all options exist in both languages.
It's not that important, I guess.
