# New Ticket Created by Elizabeth Mattijsen
# Please include the string: [perl #118231]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# <URL: https://rt.perl.org:443/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=118231 >
[23:47:51] <lizmat> given a file A.pm with: module A:version<v1> { sub a
is export { say "a" } }; module B:version<v1> { sub b is export { say "b" } }
[23:48:26] stevan_ ([email protected]) left
IRC. (Remote host closed the connection)
[23:48:52] <lizmat> use A; a; b; import B # currently fails because it
tries to import "b", whereas the "use A" already did that also
[23:49:32] <lizmat> even though they are the same sub
[23:50:04] sqirrel ([email protected]) left IRC.
(Quit: Verlassend)
[23:50:12] <lizmat> is the fact that "use A" exports the subs from module
B a rakudobug, or is that a case of "don't do that" ?
[23:50:46] <jnthn> Well, you're importing the stuff from EXPORT::DEFAULT
[23:50:52] <jnthn> And "is export" installs the things in there
[23:51:01] <lizmat> Feels to me that we should maybe disallow more than
one module / class etc. at the top level of a UNIT to prevent these type of
situations?
[23:51:11] <jnthn> Nah.
[23:51:31] <jnthn> It's common to do that. Especially if one of them is a
lexical class that you're using as an implementation detail
[23:51:46] <lizmat> I'm not against that
[23:51:57] <lizmat> that's lexical inside, and hidden from the outside
[23:52:31] <lizmat> it's just that there is a difference between "use A"
and "import A" in the case of 2 top level modules with exportable subs
[23:52:32] <jnthn> I thought we didn't complain about importing the same
things twice, though...
[23:52:35] <jnthn> r: use Test; use Test;
[23:52:36] <+camelia> rakudo 25a0b3:
OUTPUTĀ«[31m===[0mSORRY![31m===[0mā¤Cannot import the following symbols from
Test, because they already exist in this lexical scope: &skip_rest, &diag,
&done_testing, &doneā¤at /tmp/zuyxQPOgEB:1ā¤------> [32muse Test; use
Test[33mā[31m;[0mā¤Ā»
[23:52:46] <jnthn> Ah, hm.
[23:52:59] <lizmat> so maybe that's the rakudobug ?
[23:53:10] <jnthn> I'm a bit surprised it complains there.
[23:53:19] <jnthn> Especially as I thought I'd fixed that in the past...
[23:53:43] <lizmat> ok, then I'll submit a rakudobug for this and we can
look at this later
[23:53:52] <lizmat> is that a plan?
[23:54:02] <jnthn> Sure
