On Friday, 14 August 2015 at 20:12:43 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
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.
I called it broken because it makes impossible to add new symbols
to the library without possibly breaking user code. Same scenario
in Rust is much less likely - comparing default import semantics,
of course. And idioms don't matter because only very few use
them, thus I only consider default import behaviour when making
such statement.
Still disagree?
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.
Won't try to convince anyone about good style and stuff. All I
need is some confirmation that presented nested import semantics
will stay :( Will try poking Walter personally.
