On Thursday, 15 December 2016 at 19:52:50 UTC, Andrei
Alexandrescu wrote:
On 12/15/2016 02:22 PM, Timothee Cour via Digitalmars-d wrote:
Some more details on my proposa based on UDA:
...
I now understand the idea, thank you.
My question is, doesn't this take things too far? Earlier I
wrote:
The acceptability of the proposal decays exponentially with its
deviation from existing import syntax.
Indeed adding less syntax is better, but that's not an
absolute; the optimum isn't necessarily at the "zero syntax
added" point. This is because there are several things to
harmonize in language design, which naturally are in tension.
Andrei
Something like Timothee Cour's @deps proposal is interesting,
because it adds the same options to DCD's as module level imports
have.
They can be applied to any symbol that supports udas which the
current syntax from the dip doesnt.
As he displayed, they can be used to group symbols together which
makes it more dry, but that can also be a drawback when
refactoring depending which version you use.
And you dont have to support all shown features as that syntax is
easier extendable.
The initial version could support only import statements.
