On 07/30/2015 02:40 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2015-07-30 06:41, Walter Bright wrote:
I agree with your goal of readability. And if someone wants to write
code that emphasizes it's JSON, they can write it as
std.data.json.parseStream. (It's not about saving typing, it's about
avoiding extra redundant redundancy, I'm a big fan of Strunk & White :-)
) This is not a huge deal for me, but I'm not in favor of establishing a
new convention that repeats the module name. It eschews one of the
advantages of having module name spaces in the first place, and evokes
the old C style naming conventions.
I kind of agree with that, but at the same time, if one always need to
use the fully qualified name (or an alias) because there's a conflict
then that's quite annoying.
It also fucks up UFCS, and I'm a huge fan of UFCS.
I do agree that D's module system is awesome here and worth taking
advantage of to avoid C++-style naming conventions, but I still think
balance is needed. Sometimes, just because we can use a shorter
potentially-conflicting name doesn't mean we necessarily should.
