On Tue, 15 Nov 2011 22:30:51 -0500, Jesse Phillips <jessekphillip...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 12 Nov 2011 00:21:55 -0500, Robert Jacques wrote:
On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 22:17:10 -0500, Jesse Phillips
<jessekphillip...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 23:28:20 -0500, Robert Jacques wrote:
On Sun, 06 Nov 2011 19:00:42 -0500, Jesse Phillips
<jessekphillip...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
Modules, static and named imports are extremely useful tools for making
disparate third party libraries work together. But Phobos is one (big)
library, not a bunch of separate ones. We shouldn't ever need to use
these tools to resolve Phobos name conflicts. In fact one of the (many)
goals of D is to scale down to quick and dirty scripts. rdmd helps with
this a lot, but the other piece of this puzzle is 'import std.all;'
which doesn't work today. And while I don't think we should break
existing code just to fix this problem, going forward, as we update and
add libraries to Phobos, we need to strive to prevent name collisions.
And, like std.file and std.stdio, I'd expect std.csv and std.databases
to be used together often. Furthermore, your primary case for exposing
these structs is for documentation purposes. As the user isn't expected
to actually instantiate these structs (or at least not often), naming
them CsvReader and CsvReader.Row is perfectly acceptable.
I like the point on std.all, but isn't std.csv.Rows and std.csv.Row about
the same as your example names?
Yes and no. Yes, from the point of view of reading 'std.csv.Rows' in existing
code. No, from the point of view writing code. You're much more likely to write
just 'Rows' and then have to go through a quick-compile-fix-compile loop.
Worse, consider the people using the colliding std.databases.Row struct, which
now have to use the fully qualified name. I don't feel that overly succinct
names are important to std.csv, as most users will be using 'auto records =
csvReader(txt);' and will never have to type out std.csv.Rows or csvRows or
whatever.
And if dmd could do partial matches (not
exactly requesting such a feature) csv.Rows, csv.Row.
Lastly, I'd
like to draw your attention to std.algorithm.findSplit. findSplit has to
return three ranges, which it does so using a Tuple. Records is simply a
manual tuple of the headings and the row ranges, so why not leverage
Phobos for this instead?
Records requires access to the header for building the associative array.
So while I still could return both, the range would still be holding the
header. If you think it would make an improvement then you'd probably
want to update your vote to no. Namely what I would see coming from that:
auto records = csvReader(txt);
records.header ...;
foreach(row; records.rows) { ... }
Thank you for explaining. I wasn't seeing the implementation efficiency that
comes from the custom struct approach.
