On Wednesday, 28 December 2016 at 23:14:48 UTC, Andrei
Alexandrescu wrote:
On 12/28/16 10:48 AM, deadalnix wrote:
On Saturday, 24 December 2016 at 15:44:18 UTC, Andrei
Alexandrescu wrote:
A compiler enhancement can do this _without_ a language
change.
The language addition has additional benefits as described by
DIP1005.
-- Andrei
Yes, question is, are these specific benefits worth adding a
language
change ?
Right now you got :
A/ No language change, get X.
B/ Language change, get X and Y.
It stand to reason that B should be evaluated on the benefit
provided by
Y, and Y only, rather than X and Y, as X can be provided
without the
language change.
This is exactly what the DIP describes in detail. It
consecrates sections to alternatives. Is anything missing? --
Andrei
This was more a comment about the current discussion than the
DIP. A lot of discussion effort was focused on performance, but
most of it can be achieved without language change - as the DIP
states.
I think the performance gain we are looking at here is marginal,
and I don't expect people to change their code to get a marginal
benefit, so I suggest the performance aspect of the change to be
simply left aside.
So the question now is would the added expressivity of per
declaration import be worth the language change. I have to admit
I'm not convinced either way.
Finally, while I proposed a variation of the "with import" combo
in the past, I'm now much more convinced that using the plain
import syntax, without the ';' is better. I was afraid there was
a syntax conflict, but it doesn't looks like there is one. This
will not introduce a new syntax, but allow an existing one to be
used in a new location. This is, IMO, much more valuable.
