"Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:a5drkl$1nbf$1@digitaldaemon.com...

> But that would be analogous to:
>
>     struct foo { int bar; }
>     int foo;
>
>     foo.bar + foo;

Then, we return back to the first post =)
Some way to import the entire package by specifying its name.

"Pavel Minayev" <evilone@omen.ru> wrote in message news:a5dss1$1nri$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Then, we return back to the first post =)
> Some way to import the entire package by specifying its name.

file.d:
-----
    import foo;

foo.d:
------
    import bar;
    import silly;
    import abc;

"Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:a5eqea$268u$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> "Pavel Minayev" <evilone@omen.ru> wrote in message news:a5dss1$1nri$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > Then, we return back to the first post =)
> > Some way to import the entire package by specifying its name.
                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

So if the package is named "foo", "import foo" would import all modules from it.

> file.d:
> -----
>     import foo;
>
> foo.d:
> ------
>     import bar;
>     import silly;
>     import abc;
>

"Pavel Minayev" <evilone@omen.ru> escribió en el mensaje
news:a5ai6p$4q8$1@digitaldaemon.com...
| Is it possible to import the entire package, with all its subpackages
| and modules? The following doesn't work (yet?):
|
|     import c;    // stdio & stdlib
|
|     int main()
|     {
|         printf("Hello, world!\n");
|         return 0;
|     }
|
| Are you planning to support this feature?
|
|

"Pavel Minayev" <evilone@omen.ru> escribió en el mensaje
news:a5f5b6$2aik$1@digitaldaemon.com...
| "Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in message
| news:a5eqea$268u$1@digitaldaemon.com...
| > "Pavel Minayev" <evilone@omen.ru> wrote in message
| > news:a5dss1$1nri$1@digitaldaemon.com...
| > > Then, we return back to the first post =)
| > > Some way to import the entire package by specifying its name.
|                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
| So if the package is named "foo", "import foo" would import all
| modules from it.
|
| > file.d:
| > -----
| >     import foo;
| >
| > foo.d:
| > ------
| >     import bar;
| >     import silly;
| >     import abc;
| >

(I won't explain how I got to this)
What happened to this? Walter, you never said anything about it. I'm
thinking 'import foo.*;' could be a work-around for that.

————————————————————————— Carlos Santander


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.463 / Virus Database: 262 - Release Date: 2003-03-17

"Carlos Santander B." <carlos8294@msn.com> wrote in message news:b5k80a$11ia$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> "Pavel Minayev" <evilone@omen.ru> escribió en el mensaje
> news:a5ai6p$4q8$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> | Is it possible to import the entire package, with all its subpackages
> | and modules? The following doesn't work (yet?):
> |
> |     import c;    // stdio & stdlib
> |
> |     int main()
> |     {
> |         printf("Hello, world!\n");
> |         return 0;
> |     }
> |
> | Are you planning to support this feature?
> |
> |
>
> "Pavel Minayev" <evilone@omen.ru> escribió en el mensaje
> news:a5f5b6$2aik$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> | "Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in message
> | news:a5eqea$268u$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> | > "Pavel Minayev" <evilone@omen.ru> wrote in message
> | > news:a5dss1$1nri$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> | > > Then, we return back to the first post =)
> | > > Some way to import the entire package by specifying its name.
> |                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> |
> | So if the package is named "foo", "import foo" would import all
> | modules from it.
> |
> | > file.d:
> | > -----
> | >     import foo;
> | >
> | > foo.d:
> | > ------
> | >     import bar;
> | >     import silly;
> | >     import abc;
> | >
>
> (I won't explain how I got to this)
> What happened to this? Walter, you never said anything about it. I'm
> thinking 'import foo.*;' could be a work-around for that.

I thought it was clear - a 'package' can contain others simply by importing them, a-la the foo.d above. An import of foo gets all of foo's imports.

| > | > file.d:
| > | > -----
| > | >     import foo;
| > | >
| > | > foo.d:
| > | > ------
| > | >     import bar;
| > | >     import silly;
| > | >     import abc;
|
| I thought it was clear - a 'package' can contain others simply by
importing
| them, a-la the foo.d above. An import of foo gets all of foo's imports.

I understand that, but what if module foo had a thousand files? Then foo.d
would have a thousand import lines.
I just tried this:
\
|-e.d
|-a\
   |-a.d
   |-b.d
   |-c.d
   |-d.d
a.d imports b,c and d. e.d imports a.a. If I do 'dmd -c e', I get:
"Assertion failure: '0' on line 342 in file 'module.c'", so the foo.d above
wouldn't work either.

————————————————————————— Carlos Santander


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.465 / Virus Database: 263 - Release Date: 2003-03-25

"Carlos Santander B." <carlos8294@msn.com> wrote in message news:b5r0rg$2kec$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> | I thought it was clear - a 'package' can contain others simply by
> importing
> | them, a-la the foo.d above. An import of foo gets all of foo's imports.
> I understand that, but what if module foo had a thousand files? Then foo.d
> would have a thousand import lines.

Yes, it would. But forgive me, I think that a module that needs to import a thousand other modules has more pressing problems <g>.

> I just tried this:
> \
> |-e.d
> |-a\
>    |-a.d
>    |-b.d
>    |-c.d
>    |-d.d
> a.d imports b,c and d. e.d imports a.a. If I do 'dmd -c e', I get:
> "Assertion failure: '0' on line 342 in file 'module.c'", so the foo.d
above
> wouldn't work either.

Yes, having a module with the same name as its subdirectory doesn't work.

Walter wrote:
> 
> "Carlos Santander B." <carlos8294@msn.com> wrote in message news:b5r0rg$2kec$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > | I thought it was clear - a 'package' can contain others simply by
> > importing
> > | them, a-la the foo.d above. An import of foo gets all of foo's imports.
> > I understand that, but what if module foo had a thousand files? Then foo.d
> > would have a thousand import lines.
> 
> Yes, it would.

Does that mean that a "just import" module can act as a replacement for a "central header" file?

As there a different way to import a whole library or would such a module be the way to go?

-- 
Helmut Leitner    leitner@hls.via.at
Graz, Austria   www.hls-software.com

"Helmut Leitner" <leitner@hls.via.at> wrote in message news:3E8170D8.4586F4F9@hls.via.at...
> Walter wrote:
> >
> > "Carlos Santander B." <carlos8294@msn.com> wrote in message news:b5r0rg$2kec$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > > | I thought it was clear - a 'package' can contain others simply by
> > > importing
> > > | them, a-la the foo.d above. An import of foo gets all of foo's
imports.
> > > I understand that, but what if module foo had a thousand files? Then
foo.d
> > > would have a thousand import lines.
> >
> > Yes, it would.
>
> Does that mean that a "just import" module can act as
> a replacement for a "central header" file?

Yes.

> As there a different way to import a whole library or
> would such a module be the way to go?

The latter.