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 elm-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
