On 08/13/2015 06:19 PM, Dicebot wrote:
On Thursday, 13 August 2015 at 15:59:46 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 08/13/2015 05:49 PM, Dicebot wrote:
On Thursday, 13 August 2015 at 15:40:12 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
You know about static imports, right?
Yes, as well as about renamed and selective ones ;)
Problem with static imports is that they are all-or-nothing.
(Which is an arbitrary restriction most likely motivated by
implementation difficulties.)
Well I prefer to work with tools I have right now and not wait for
something sane to be implemented.
...
(It's about communicating clearly what the problem actually is. static
imports are not inherently all-or-nothing.)
When doing my old "Rust vs D" comparison I have been mentioning their
import semantics as a big win. When you do import like this:
use phrases::english::greetings;
You must always also qualify symbol name with module name like this:
println!("Hello in English: {}", greetings::hello());
And this won't compile:
println!("Hello in English: {}", hello());
It has similar benefits as the idiom proposed in this topic - greatly
reduced risk of accidental clashes.
static import greetings=phrases.english.greetings;
?
http://forum.dlang.org/post/szaaakmavraxatkrf...@forum.dlang.org
How is this relevant? Does Rust support it?
