Makes sense. It reads as it would be spoken. On Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 6:38:16 AM UTC, Robin Heggelund Hansen wrote: > > I've done some Go programming lately, and have been inspired by the way > imports are handled. This is one of two proposals to make minor > modifications to how imports are handled in Elm today. > > Imports are always written at the top of a file, after the package > declaration, and after the docstring (if any). Doing anything else fails to > compile. Elm does, however, have syntax that allows specifying imports on > different lines. What if imports had to be grouped together, just like > exposed types/variables/functions? > > In Go, imports can be grouped together like this: > > ``` > import ( > "module/a" > . "module/b" > name "module/c" > ) > ``` > > I think this would make a nice addition to Elm as well. I propose to > change the current import syntax so that there can only be one import > statement per module, and that it looks like the following: > > ``` > imports ( > Module.A, > Module.B exposing (..), > Module.C as Name > ) > ``` >
-- 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.
