Hi, I am quite often doing the same thing (plus exposing the main type
having the same name than the module) like:
import Module.Something as Something exposing (Something)
What I am concerned about is that it would be implicit, and all implicit
things tend to lead to confusion.
On Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 2:51:42 PM UTC+8, Robin Heggelund Hansen
wrote:
>
> Note. The `as` keyword would still be necessary for brevity is desired,
> and for when two modules are imported where the last part of the name is
> the same.
>
> søndag 20. november 2016 07.50.42 UTC+1 skrev Robin Heggelund Hansen
> følgende:
>>
>> I mostly try to use qualified imports instead of exposing variables into
>> my namespace. This leads me to using the `as` keyword often, like this:
>>
>> ```
>> import Module.B as B
>> import Module.C as C
>> {- etc. -}
>> ```
>>
>> In Go, accessing a namespace through the last part of it's name, is
>> implicit. If that was true of Elm as well, the example above would be the
>> same as:
>>
>> ```
>> import Module.B
>> import Module.C
>> {- etc. -}
>> ```
>>
>> For me, having this in Elm would remove most of my uses of the `as`
>> keyword. If my other import proposal was also implemented, import handling
>> would be simpler, at least for me, without sacrificing readability.
>>
>> What do people think?
>>
>
--
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.
