Glob imports work well up front but aren't good for maintenance. In Haskell if a popular library adds a new function it could easily break any packages that depend on it that use glob imports. It's more work but almost always best to explicitly import individual names. A tool could help with this though.
On Wednesday, March 12, 2014, Huon Wilson <[email protected]> wrote: > Certain aspects of them dramatically complicate the name resolution > algorithm (as I understand it), and, anyway, they have various downsides > for the actual code, e.g. the equivalent in Python is frowned upon: > http://python.net/~goodger/projects/pycon/2007/idiomatic/handout.html#importing > > Maybe they aren't so bad in a compiled & statically typed language? I > don't know; either way, I personally find code without glob imports easier > to read, because I can work out which function is being called very easily, > whereas glob imports require more effort. > > > Huon > > On 12/03/14 20:44, Liigo Zhuang wrote: > > "glob use" just make compiler loading more types, but make programmers a > lot easy (to write, to remember). perhaps I'm wrong? thank you! > > -- > by *Liigo*, http://blog.csdn.net/liigo/ > Google+ https://plus.google.com/105597640837742873343/ > > > _______________________________________________ > Rust-dev mailing [email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev > > >
_______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
