Is that a good idea? It seems like occasionally, but not always, using the namespace would make your code less readable than not doing it at all.
On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 9:37 AM, Will White <[email protected]> wrote: > I can still namespace functions with import exposing (..). > > On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 5:08:29 PM UTC+1, Nick H wrote: >> >> If you prefer not having to remember things, then you should use >> qualified imports. >> >> Stripping the namespace off of all your imported functions means that >> your code no longer tells you where these functions come from. You will >> have to remember this information yourself. This doesn't seem like much of >> a mental burden at the moment, but it will likely become much more >> burdensome in 6 months when you are reading through your code again (e.g. >> "Now, which of these 10 modules did that 'reticulateSplines' function come >> from?") And if you never run into that annoyance, I guarantee that every >> other person who reads your code will. >> >> What's more, APIs that follow the design guidelines >> <http://package.elm-lang.org/help/design-guidelines#naming> are going to >> make your life even harder, because the functions will have names designed >> to work with a qualifier. Look at your own example. If "toString" only >> works on one type, then it is a terribly undescriptive name. But if the >> module is named "Foo" and the type defined in that module is named "Foo", >> then "Foo.toString" is not a terrible name. >> >> From the design guidelines: >> >>> A function called State.runState is redundant and silly. More >>> importantly, it encourages people to use import State exposing (..) >>> which does not scale well. In files with many so-called "unqualified" >>> dependencies, it is essentially impossible to figure out where functions >>> are coming from. This can make large code bases impossible to understand, >>> especially if custom infix operators are used as well. Repeating the module >>> name actively encourages this kind of unreadable code. >>> With a name like State.run the user is encouraged to disambiguate >>> functions with namespacing, leading to a codebase that will be clearer to >>> people reading the project for the first time. A great example from the >>> standard library is Bitwise.and >>> >> >> >> On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 8:18 AM, Janis Voigtländer < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I can’t search for the thread right now, but I’m sure you can find it >>> yourself via the archive. In any case, one aspect of it (but I think there >>> were more) was this: https://github.com/elm-lang/elm-make/issues/61 >>> >>> >>> 2016-08-18 17:08 GMT+02:00 Will White <[email protected]>: >>> >>>> What unexpected results? The compiler has your back if two unqualified >>>> functions have the same name. >>>> >>>> On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 3:56:50 PM UTC+1, Janis Voigtländer >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> That's not an answer to my question I understand as a problem >>>>> description. >>>>> >>>>> Also, there have been earlier threads here that have discussed what >>>>> can go wrong if you unwittingly import with exposing everything. So, where >>>>> not remembering that one of those imports brought a certain function name >>>>> into scope, lead to unexpected results. If your concern is valid, theirs >>>>> is >>>>> at least as much. >>>>> >>>>> Am 18.08.2016 um 17:48 schrieb Will White <[email protected]>: >>>>> >>>>> You have to remember to qualify. >>>>> >>>>> On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 3:40:21 PM UTC+1, Janis Voigtländer >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> In what ways are qualified imports at odds with safe code? >>>>>> >>>>>> I think the opposite is the case: unqualified imports lead to less >>>>>> code safety. >>>>>> >>>>>> Am 18.08.2016 um 17:37 schrieb Will White <[email protected]>: >>>>>> >>>>>> I prefer safe code to qualified imports. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 3:11:21 PM UTC+1, Peter Damoc wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Qualified imports are preferred." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://elm-lang.org/docs/syntax#modules >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I try to avoid as much as possible importing everything from a >>>>>>> module. >>>>>>> If I would have IDE support for automatic imports I would never do a >>>>>>> import >>>>>>> Module exposing (..). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>> Groups "Elm Discuss" group. >>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>> send an email to [email protected]. >>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>> Groups "Elm Discuss" group. >>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>>> an email to [email protected]. >>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups "Elm Discuss" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>> an email to [email protected]. >>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "Elm Discuss" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to [email protected]. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>> >> >> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Elm Discuss" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Elm Discuss" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
