Bill Baxter Wrote: > On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 5:50 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu > <seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> wrote: > > Lars Kyllingstad wrote: > >> I think isInfinite!() should be called isInfiniteRange!(). The current > >> name is, in my opinion, too general. > > > > I'm undecided about this (and similar cases). isInfinite sits inside > > std.range, so std.range.isInfinite is clear and std.range.isInfiniteRange > > feels redundant. On the other hand, I don't want to use too common symbols > > because then the user will be forced to prefix them whenever they clash. > > This is one of the big reasons why "static import" by default would > have been better than pull-everything-in by default. > > But since pull-everything-in *is* the default. I agree with Lars. > Symbols supplied by modules should look unambiguous even when > undecorated by their module name. Or you could use the trick that > Tango often uses -- make a static struct with a few members. It's > pretty ugly though, if you ask me. Introducing a static struct just > to get a namespace to replace the namespace that is already there but > gets stripped as the default action upon 'import'. Ick. > > --bb
There's no need for imported names to be unambiguous. Users can give aliases to imports or import specific members. I hate how Tango puts stuff in structs for no good reason
