Hmm. What makes it less clear? It essentially just removes the need to write `import` for every line.
mandag 21. november 2016 03.07.29 UTC+1 skrev Daniel Walker følgende: > > 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.
