On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 11:06 PM, Christopher Wright <dhase...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > > import range=std.range;
Not a default. --bb
