On Tuesday, 14 February 2017 at 09:55:51 UTC, Jacob Carlborg
wrote:
On 2017-02-14 04:49, Timothee Cour via Digitalmars-d wrote:
What about allowing syntax sugar as an alternative to relying
on the new
`from/Module` inline import idiom:
```
void fun(T)(std.stdio::File input, T value) if
(std.traits::isIntegral!T) {...}
```
instead of:
```
void fun(T)(Module!"std.stdio".File input, T value) if
(Module!"std.traits".isIntegral!T) {...}
```
Rationale:
* this reads much better (less noise); same as `=>` syntax for
lambdas
* this is expected to be a very common pattern, so might as
well make it
as simple as possible
Why? It looks awful. The signatures we already have in Phobos
is quite ridiculous, this will not improve. Isn't this and the
whole idea of DIP 1005 just a workaround for the compiler not
lazily analyzing the symbols.
This is what I had thought as well when Andrei first posted
DIP1005, but he said that his main goal is actually making it so
a declaration can carry all of its imports with it in a
self-contained unit. When you look at it that way it makes a bit
more sense as to why we might want constructs such as introduced
by DIP1005 or this self-important lookup idiom.
