I was referring to your proposal. Josh's proposal is clearer but still not as clear as what we have today IMHO.
On Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 5:25:29 PM UTC-7, Robin Heggelund Hansen wrote: > > 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.
