Is there any reason why you wouldnt want to do:

import    packagename.*;

?

Phill.


"Ilya Minkov" <minkov@cs.tum.edu> wrote in message news:c3mprf$2kgo$2@digitaldaemon.com...
> I would expect that to be somewhat bug-prone, but not seriously.
>
> I propose we simply have a convention that to import everything useful/public from a package, there should be a module named "all" in it.
>
> -eye
>
> Vathix schrieb:
>
> > If there's a D source file in a package with the same name as the
> > package, I think it would be nice to be able to omit that 2nd name in
> > the import statement. Instead of:
> > import std.c.windows.windows;
> > You could use:
> > import std.c.windows;
> > And it knows to look for winodws.d inside.
> >
> > This way the source with the package name would be the "include everything" file for the package (if you want one), instead of wildcard imports like Java. This seems cleaner to me, it allows you to omit the internal files -- import the files that are public.
> >

On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 15:58:51 +1100 (23/Mar/04 03:58:51 PM)
, Phill <phill@pacific.net.au> wrote:

> Is there any reason why you wouldnt want to do:
>
> import    packagename.*;
>

This is kind of like asking why would somebody have source files in a folder that are not modules? I guess during development it is quite likely for somebody to have a few not-for-production-use files hanging around.

-- 
Derek

geez, its a wonder all of the Java developers
that exist can somehow get away with it.

Somehow it is possible to have other file
types in your Java packages and still

import packagename.*;

without any problems

Phill.


"Derek Parnell" <Derek.Parnell@psyc.ward> wrote in message news:opr5at2v1nu2m3b2@news.digitalmars.com...
> On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 15:58:51 +1100 (23/Mar/04 03:58:51 PM)
> , Phill <phill@pacific.net.au> wrote:
>
> > Is there any reason why you wouldnt want to do:
> >
> > import    packagename.*;
> >
>
> This is kind of like asking why would somebody have source files in a folder that are not modules? I guess during development it is quite likely for somebody to have a few not-for-production-use files hanging around.
>
> --
> Derek

On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 16:54:00 +1100 (23/Mar/04 04:54:00 PM)
, Phill <phill@pacific.net.au> wrote:

> geez, its a wonder all of the Java developers
> that exist can somehow get away with it.
>
> Somehow it is possible to have other file
> types in your Java packages and still
>
> import packagename.*;
>
> without any problems
>

Well that only goes to prove that Java coders are a lot better organised than I am.

But seriously, maybe its just that I don't understand the import system enough yet. I would have thought that importing every file from a folder might cause a problem if two files had the same module name or function name defined. Some sort of ambiguity would need to be resolved if such an identifier were used without ornamentation. I should just shut up and try a few experiements first, eh?

-- 
Derek

"Derek Parnell" <Derek.Parnell@psyc.ward> wrote in message news:opr5axggvxu2m3b2@news.digitalmars.com...
> On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 16:54:00 +1100 (23/Mar/04 04:54:00 PM)
> , Phill <phill@pacific.net.au> wrote:
>
> > geez, its a wonder all of the Java developers
> > that exist can somehow get away with it.
> >
> > Somehow it is possible to have other file
> > types in your Java packages and still
> >
> > import packagename.*;
> >
> > without any problems
> >
>
> Well that only goes to prove that Java coders are a lot better organised than I am.
>
> But seriously, maybe its just that I don't understand the import system enough yet. I would have thought that importing every file from a folder might cause a problem if two files had the same module name or function name defined. Some sort of ambiguity would need to be resolved if such an identifier were used without ornamentation.


I dont know about D, but in Java you cant have dupilcate classes:(I dont
believe that you can in
D either)

ie:
You cant have two

somepackage.someclass;
(Why would you want to anyway?)
And they couldnt possibly have the same filename
or one would overwrite the other.

as for methods, they shouldnt matter either because they are in a different class.

I would have thought that D would be the same.

Is it not?

Phill.

woops


"Vathix" <vathix@dprogramming.com> wrote in message news:c3kv7l$2o19$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> If there's a D source file in a package with the same name as the
> package, I think it would be nice to be able to omit that 2nd name in
> the import statement. Instead of:
> import std.c.windows.windows;
> You could use:
> import std.c.windows;
> And it knows to look for winodws.d inside.
>
> This way the source with the package name would be the "include everything" file for the package (if you want one), instead of wildcard imports like Java. This seems cleaner to me, it allows you to omit the internal files -- import the files that are public.
>
> --
> Christopher E. Miller

Just as an aside;

I can't recall many particular reasons, but, it's been considered "poor form" to use the Java import pkg.* syntax for quite some time (at least in the circles I used to move within).

Several years of Java taught me to be explicit with imports, partly so that maintainers and forgetful authors don't have to guess at what's actually imported. Additionally, I've seen cases where extensions to the package structure will break code because of name conflicts -- explicit import fixed that every time.

- Kris

"Phill" <phill@pacific.net.au> wrote in message news:c3ojdi$2ohk$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> geez, its a wonder all of the Java developers
> that exist can somehow get away with it.
>
> Somehow it is possible to have other file
> types in your Java packages and still
>
> import packagename.*;
>
> without any problems
>
> Phill.
>
>
> "Derek Parnell" <Derek.Parnell@psyc.ward> wrote in message news:opr5at2v1nu2m3b2@news.digitalmars.com...
> > On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 15:58:51 +1100 (23/Mar/04 03:58:51 PM)
> > , Phill <phill@pacific.net.au> wrote:
> >
> > > Is there any reason why you wouldnt want to do:
> > >
> > > import    packagename.*;
> > >
> >
> > This is kind of like asking why would somebody have source files in a folder that are not modules? I guess during development it is quite
likely
> > for somebody to have a few not-for-production-use files hanging around.
> >
> > --
> > Derek
>
>

I see your point, and I also import the specific
files also(not the whole package), unless there
is maybe 5 or 6 files in a particular package
that I want to import and then I prefer to import
the whole package for convienience sake.

I just thought Id make a suggestion.

Phill.


"Kris" <someidiot@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:c3otas$76r$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Just as an aside;
>
> I can't recall many particular reasons, but, it's been considered "poor form" to use the Java import pkg.* syntax for quite some time (at least in the circles I used to move within).
>
> Several years of Java taught me to be explicit with imports, partly so
that
> maintainers and forgetful authors don't have to guess at what's actually imported. Additionally, I've seen cases where extensions to the package structure will break code because of name conflicts -- explicit import
fixed
> that every time.
>
> - Kris
>
> "Phill" <phill@pacific.net.au> wrote in message news:c3ojdi$2ohk$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > geez, its a wonder all of the Java developers
> > that exist can somehow get away with it.
> >
> > Somehow it is possible to have other file
> > types in your Java packages and still
> >
> > import packagename.*;
> >
> > without any problems
> >
> > Phill.
> >
> >
> > "Derek Parnell" <Derek.Parnell@psyc.ward> wrote in message news:opr5at2v1nu2m3b2@news.digitalmars.com...
> > > On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 15:58:51 +1100 (23/Mar/04 03:58:51 PM)
> > > , Phill <phill@pacific.net.au> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Is there any reason why you wouldnt want to do:
> > > >
> > > > import    packagename.*;
> > > >
> > >
> > > This is kind of like asking why would somebody have source files in a folder that are not modules? I guess during development it is quite
> likely
> > > for somebody to have a few not-for-production-use files hanging
around.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Derek
> >
> >
>
>

"Derek Parnell" <Derek.Parnell@psyc.ward> wrote in message news:opr5axggvxu2m3b2@news.digitalmars.com...
> On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 16:54:00 +1100 (23/Mar/04 04:54:00 PM)
> , Phill <phill@pacific.net.au> wrote:
>
> > geez, its a wonder all of the Java developers
> > that exist can somehow get away with it.
> >
> > Somehow it is possible to have other file
> > types in your Java packages and still
> >
> > import packagename.*;
> >
> > without any problems
> >
>
> Well that only goes to prove that Java coders are a lot better organised than I am.
>
> But seriously, maybe its just that I don't understand the import system enough yet. I would have thought that importing every file from a folder might cause a problem if two files had the same module name or function name defined. Some sort of ambiguity would need to be resolved if such an identifier were used without ornamentation. I should just shut up and try a few experiements first, eh?

Ok, i've played around a bit now with modules and imports, and I feel that any form of "import *" may lead to name clashes. The reason is that it is possible to have two files that both contain the same 'module' statement. When they are both imported, dmd will complain about a duplicate module name.

But now I have another problem. It seems that in order to resolve name clashes, the coder must qualify the identifier with the module name. This makes sense. However, I'm sure the DMD is clear about what is the module name. For example, if I have a file called 'im1.d' that looks like this ...

  module MOD1;

  class Foo
  {
    int x;

    this() { x = 1; }
  }

then I have a file that imports this file ...

  import im1;

  void main()
  {
    Foo f;

    f = new Foo;
  }

my question is, if I have to qualify the reference to Foo, why do I have to use 'im1' as the module name rather than the 'MOD1' that is specified in the module statement?

In other words, dmd accepts "im1.Foo" but rejects "MOD1.Foo". This seems odd to me as the docs seem to say that if a module statement is missing, dmd uses the file name as the default module name. Thus I read into this that if the module statement is present, then dmd would use that name.

All I can see that the module statement does, is to form a part of the internal (mangled) name for the OBJ file.


-- 
Derek

The current compiler doesn't allow this:

src/mymodule.d
src/mymodule/mod1.d
src/mymodule/mod2.d


"J Anderson" <REMOVEanderson@badmama.com.au> escribió en el mensaje news:c3nei8$n7r$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> J Anderson wrote:
(...)
> Actually I forgot, I've thought about this before.  I came to the conclusion that all you really need to do is create a module with the same name in the folder (namespace) one level up, with the files you wish to include.
(...)