On 14.06.2012 10:35, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2012-06-14 03:57, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Saturday, June 09, 2012 21:30:57 Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
Code: https://github.com/jpf91/phobos/blob/std.uuid/std/uuid.d
API-Docs: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/24218791/d/src/uuid.html
* I'm not terribly fond of having names like Variant and Version, but
they
_are_ local to UUID, so I guess that they're clear enough. But the
fact that
you have to put a note about it _not_ being std.variant.Variant
definitely
indicates that another name might be better. I know that the RFC uses
the word
variant, but it also indicates that type would probably be a better
name, and
if Variant is unclear enough that a note is needed, then perhaps it
really
isn't the right name.
I understand exactly what you're saying here and it's probably good to
not have too many conflicting names in the standard library. But at the
same time it feels like the whole point of modules go to waste and we're
back to C where everything is in the same global namespace.
It feels this way because by default we import all symbols. The good
thing is that you don't care for conflicts as long as you don't touch
the conflicting name.
One day we'd just have to use static import more often.
--
Dmitry Olshansky
