Walter Bright, el 14 de noviembre a las 14:59 me escribiste: > Leandro Lucarella wrote: > >Walter Bright, el 14 de noviembre a las 10:36 me escribiste: > >>Leandro Lucarella wrote: > >>>Does this makes more sense? > >>Yes. > > > >It would be pushing to much to ask if you're willing to give it a serious > >thought then? =) > > I understand it (I think), but I'm not as keen on it as you are <g>. > > Consider that D has function hijacking protection (I think this is > unique to D) so that inadvertent overloading by the same names in > different imports is virtually eliminated. So I think the marginal > benefit of the proposed changes is small.
I can see that it would be too much trouble for too little gain (from you POV, I still think that readability is key for code-review, which I consider key for high-quality code). Can you at least consider making easier for people who consider this is an important feature? What I think it would do a big difference is some syntax sugar for this: import leaf = some.large.package.leaf; Making static imports have that semantic can be an option, but it could be bad for backward compatibility. Maybe final import? final import some.large.package.leaf; leaf.f(); This way I can easily put all my imports inside a final block: final { import foo.bar; import bar.baz; } -- Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- CHINO ATRAPA COTORRAS -- Crónica TV