Okay, I see the usability problem now. But I don’t think it calls for always importing with exposing (..). Maybe it does call for a warning to be issued in such situations by the compiler or by an optional code quality tool.
2016-08-18 23:15 GMT+02:00 Will White <[email protected]>: > In the first snippet, I was erroneously expecting toString to call > toString from ModuleWithToString, possibly because I'd just been looking at > toString in ModuleWithToString. import exposing (..) makes this foolproof. > > On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 8:41:02 PM UTC+1, Janis Voigtländer wrote: >> >> Or maybe I'm still misunderstanding what your exact problem is in the >> absence of "exposing (..)". Maybe you can expand on the problem description >> from your first message in this thread? >> >> Am 18.08.2016 um 22:31 schrieb Janis Voigtländer <[email protected] >> >: >> >> You won't be able to forget one if "exposing (..)" is eliminated from the >> language, as is proposed in the issue I linked to. >> >> You'd then either have to qualify or add the entities explicitly in >> "exposing (concrete entities)". Problem solved, because in both cases a >> reader of the code does not need to wonder too much where any given name >> comes from. >> >> Am 18.08.2016 um 22:19 schrieb Will White <[email protected]>: >> >> Then I'll always namespace them. If I forget one though... >> >> On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 6:35:19 PM UTC+1, Janis Voigtländer wrote: >>> >>> More importantly, maybe, you will have to *remember* to use each >>> imported function at least once in qualified form in each module, or you >>> will end up in the situation Nick described, where in six months you don't >>> know (and other readers of your code do not even know the next day after >>> you wrote the code) where reticulateSplines comes from. >>> >>> Am 18.08.2016 um 20:03 schrieb Nick H <[email protected]>: >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> -- >> 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.
