On 08/15/2015 06:15 PM, Dicebot wrote:
On Friday, 14 August 2015 at 20:12:43 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 08/14/2015 08:57 PM, Dicebot wrote:
Ok, let's stop for a minute and make sure we are on the same thread
here. Because you seem to argue something I have never said or at least
intended to say.
...
OK. This is my view: The sub-thread was started with the claim that
the module system is "completely broken" in a particular way. You gave
Rust's system as an alternative, but it is (basically) the same thing
with slightly different syntax.
I called it broken because it makes impossible to add new symbols to the
library without possibly breaking user code. Same scenario in Rust is
much less likely - comparing default import semantics, of course. And
idioms don't matter because only very few use them, thus I only consider
default import behaviour when making such statement.
Still disagree?
...
Sure, but I think the disagreement is on what it /means/ for a module
system to be broken, hence it is not actually important. Thanks!
Does that make sense?
Not really. It is up to the programmer which of the idioms to use by
default, and all options exist in both languages.
It's not that important, I guess.
Won't try to convince anyone about good style and stuff. All I need is
some confirmation that presented nested import semantics will stay :(
Will try poking Walter personally.
Ok. Still "yes" is the only answer that makes any sense, and breaking
legitimate D code is not among Walter's priorities. :-)
