It's worth saying that this issue will become more frequent as Elm's package number grows, not to mention more dangerous as Elm is used in more places. I don't think this should be handled by anything more optional than the compiler.
On Friday, August 19, 2016 at 12:46:14 PM UTC+1, Janis Voigtländer wrote: > > 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] <javascript:>>: > >> 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] <javascript:>. >> 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.
