On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 7:52 AM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling < [email protected]> wrote:
> On Sunday, 18 August 2013 at 09:52:29 UTC, Timothee Cour wrote: > >> On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 2:31 AM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Sunday, 18 August 2013 at 01:33:51 UTC, Timothee Cour wrote: >>> >> granted, that's not ideal. How about the other points I mentioned? >> void fun(){ >> version=A; >> version(none): >> } >> > > Not sure I understand what you're trying to achieve there. goal1: avoid polluting global module name space: void fun(){ version=A; //now the code below in fun() scope has version(A) set } goal2: void fun(){ version(none): //all the code below this IN THIS FUNCTION becomes versioned out //(avoids requiring extra {} scope } > But as an alternative to function-local import, why not split your module > into a package, with submodules mymodule.bardependent and > mymodule.nonbardependent ... ? >
