My proposal, Josh's proposal, or both? mandag 21. november 2016 00.51.36 UTC+1 skrev Daniel Walker følgende: > > This seems a lot less readable than what we currently have to me. > > On Saturday, November 19, 2016 at 11:38:16 PM UTC-7, 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.
