Hiding is not necessary if you import into a pseudo container... It means the ide does not have to keep track of whats here whats not on a per source file basis....
Import CoreGraphics as cg cg.xxxxx Collisions are always avoided and there is only adding imports. Simple. Regards (From mobile) > On Jul 20, 2016, at 11:04 PM, Robert Widmann via swift-evolution > <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> On Jul 20, 2016, at 1:59 PM, Xiaodi Wu <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Why is hiding in-scope but renaming out-of-scope? > > > Because hiding and renaming can be used in combination to subset out APIs, > not alter them. > >> Both are additive to Swift, > > As part of this proposal, both are source-breaking. > >> and as has been argued by others, the former is a special case of the latter. > > A special case that cannot cause large-scale file-relative changes to APIs. > Renaming is primarily used in other languages that treat free functions as > more canonical than we do, or allow operator definitions that can be used as > notation. In those cases, you often have your own notation you’d like to > use. In Swift, such changes should be rare enough that if you can’t solve > them with a disambiguating qualified import then you can just redeclare the > identifier some other way (typealias, top-level let, wrapper class, whatever). > >> >> On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 15:55 Brandon Knope <[email protected]> wrote: >>> I meant is there any reason for requiring parentheses >>> >>>> On Jul 20, 2016, at 4:53 PM, Robert Widmann <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Renaming is out of scope for this proposal, that’s why. >>>> >>>>> On Jul 20, 2016, at 1:26 PM, Brandon Knope <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I prefer this 100x more >>>>> >>>>> Is there any reason why this wouldn't work? >>>>> >>>>> Brandon >>>>> >>>>>> On Jul 20, 2016, at 4:13 PM, Xiaodi Wu <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Yeah, I'd be happy to lose the parentheses as well. >>>>>> >>>>>> In the last thread, my take on simplifying the proposed syntax was: >>>>>> >>>>>> ``` >>>>>> import Swift using String, Int >>>>>> >>>>>> // or, for hiding: >>>>>> import Swift using Int as _ >>>>>> ``` >>>>>> >>>>>> The key simplification here is that hiding doesn't need its own >>>>>> contextual keyboard, especially if we support renaming (a huge plus in >>>>>> my book), as renaming to anything unused (or explicitly to `_`) is what >>>>>> hiding is all about. >>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 15:01 Brandon Knope <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Jul 20, 2016, at 3:08 PM, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution >>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As Joe and others mentioned in the previous thread, this syntax could >>>>>>>> be greatly simplified in ways that resemble analogous facilities in >>>>>>>> other languages. In particular I think it's alarmingly asymmetrical >>>>>>>> that, in your proposal, `import Swift using (String)` imports *only* >>>>>>>> String while `import Swift hiding (String)` imports *everything but* >>>>>>>> String. This becomes evident when chained together: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ``` >>>>>>>> import Swift using (String, Int) >>>>>>>> // imports only String and Int >>>>>>>> import Swift using (String, Int) hiding (String) >>>>>>>> // imports only Int >>>>>>>> import Swift hiding (String, Int) >>>>>>>> // imports everything except String and Int >>>>>>>> import Swift hiding (String, Int) using (String) >>>>>>>> // imports *nothing*? nothing except String? everything except Int? >>>>>>>> confusing. >>>>>>>> ``` >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> By contrast, Joe's proposed syntax (with some riffs) produces >>>>>>>> something much more terse *and* much more clear: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ``` >>>>>>>> import Swift.* >>>>>>>> import Swift.(Int as MyInt, *) >>>>>>>> import Swift.(Int as _, *) >>>>>>>> ``` >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I really don't find this much clearer than the proposed one. The >>>>>>> proposal reads much clearer. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Joe's syntax has a lot going on in my opinion. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For the proposal, do we really need the parentheses? It makes the >>>>>>> syntax look heavier >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Brandon >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 1:52 PM, Robert Widmann via swift-evolution >>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>> Hello all, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I’d like to thank the members of the community that have guided the >>>>>>>>> revisions of this proposal. We have decided to heed the advice of >>>>>>>>> the community and break down our original proposal on modules and >>>>>>>>> qualified imports into source-breaking (qualified imports) and >>>>>>>>> additive (modules) proposals. As qualified imports is the change >>>>>>>>> most suited to Swift 3, we are pushing that proposal now as our final >>>>>>>>> draft. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It can be had inline with this email, on Github, or as a gist. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ~Robert Widmann >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Qualified Imports Revisited >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Proposal: SE-NNNN >>>>>>>>> Authors: Robert Widmann, TJ Usiyan >>>>>>>>> Status: Awaiting review >>>>>>>>> Review manager: TBD >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Introduction >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We propose a complete overhaul of the qualified imports syntax and >>>>>>>>> semantics. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Motivation >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The existing syntax for qualified imports from modules is needlessly >>>>>>>>> explicit, does not compose, and has a default semantics that dilutes >>>>>>>>> the intended meaning of the very operation itself. Today, a qualified >>>>>>>>> import looks something like this >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> import class Foundation.Date >>>>>>>>> This means that clients of Foundation that wish to see only Date must >>>>>>>>> know the exact kind of declaration that identifier is. In addition, >>>>>>>>> though this import specifies exactly one class be imported from >>>>>>>>> Foundation, the actual semantics mean Swift will recursively open all >>>>>>>>> of Foundation's submodules so you can see, and use, every other >>>>>>>>> identifier anyway - and they are not filtered from code completion. >>>>>>>>> Qualified imports deserve to be first-class in Swift, and that is >>>>>>>>> what we intend to make them with this proposal. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Proposed solution >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The grammar and semantics of qualified imports will change completely >>>>>>>>> with the addition of import qualifiers and import directives. We also >>>>>>>>> introduce two new contextual keywords: using and hiding, to >>>>>>>>> facilitate fine-grained usage of module contents. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Detailed design >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Qualified import syntax will be revised to the following >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> import-decl -> import <import-path> <(opt) import-directive-list> >>>>>>>>> import-path -> <identifier> >>>>>>>>> -> <identifier>.<identifier> >>>>>>>>> import-directive-list -> <import-directive> >>>>>>>>> -> <import-directive> <import-directive-list> >>>>>>>>> import-directive -> using (<identifier>, ...) >>>>>>>>> -> hiding (<identifier>, ...) >>>>>>>>> This introduces the concept of an import directive. An import >>>>>>>>> directive is a file-local modification of an imported identifier. A >>>>>>>>> directive can be one of 2 operations: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 1) using: The using directive is followed by a list of identifiers >>>>>>>>> for non-member nominal declarations within the imported module that >>>>>>>>> should be exposed to this file. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> // The only visible parts of Foundation in this file are >>>>>>>>> // Foundation.Date, Foundation.DateFormatter, and >>>>>>>>> Foundation.DateComponents >>>>>>>>> // >>>>>>>>> // Previously, this was >>>>>>>>> // import class Foundation.Date >>>>>>>>> // import class Foundation.DateFormatter >>>>>>>>> // import class Foundation.DateComponents >>>>>>>>> import Foundation using (Date, DateFormatter, DateComponents) >>>>>>>>> 2) hiding: The hiding directive is followed by a list of identifiers >>>>>>>>> for non-member nominal declarations within the imported module that >>>>>>>>> should be hidden from this file. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> // Imports all of Foundation except `Date` >>>>>>>>> import Foundation hiding (Date) >>>>>>>>> As today, all hidden identifiers do not hide the type, they merely >>>>>>>>> hide that type’s members and its declaration. For example, this means >>>>>>>>> values of hidden types are still allowed. Unlike the existing >>>>>>>>> implementation, using their members is forbidden. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> // Imports `DateFormatter` but the declaration of `Date` is hidden. >>>>>>>>> import Foundation using (DateFormatter) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> var d = DateFormatter().date(from: "...") // Valid >>>>>>>>> var dt : Date = DateFormatter().date(from: "...") // Invalid: Cannot >>>>>>>>> use name of hidden type. >>>>>>>>> d.addTimeInterval(5.0) // Invalid: Cannot use members of hidden type. >>>>>>>>> Import directives chain to one another and can be used to create a >>>>>>>>> fine-grained module import: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> // This imports Swift.Int, Swift.Double, and Swift.String but hides >>>>>>>>> Swift.String.UTF8View >>>>>>>>> import Swift using (String, Int, Double) >>>>>>>>> hiding (String.UTF8View) >>>>>>>>> Directive chaining occurs left-to-right: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> // This says to 1) Use Int 2) Hide String 3) rename Double to Triple. >>>>>>>>> It is invalid >>>>>>>>> // because 1) Int is available 2) String is not, error. >>>>>>>>> import Swift using (Int) hiding (String) >>>>>>>>> // Valid. This will be merged as `using (Int)` >>>>>>>>> import Swift using () using (Int) >>>>>>>>> // Valid. This will be merged as `hiding (String, Double)` >>>>>>>>> import Swift hiding (String) hiding (Double) hiding () >>>>>>>>> // Valid (if redundant). This will be merged as `using ()` >>>>>>>>> import Swift using (String) hiding (String) >>>>>>>>> Because import directives are file-local, they will never be exported >>>>>>>>> along with the module that declares them. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Impact on existing code >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Existing code that is using qualified module import syntax (import >>>>>>>>> {func|class|typealias|class|struct|enum|protocol} <qualified-name>) >>>>>>>>> will be deprecated and should be removed or migrated. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Alternatives considered >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> A previous iteration of this proposal introduced an operation to >>>>>>>>> allow the renaming of identifiers, especially members. The original >>>>>>>>> intent was to allow file-local modifications of APIs consumers felt >>>>>>>>> needed to conform to their specific coding style. On review, we felt >>>>>>>>> the feature was not as significant as to warrant inclusion and was >>>>>>>>> ripe for abuse in large projects. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> swift-evolution mailing list >>>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> swift-evolution mailing list >>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution >>>> > > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
