I wonder why the following syntax isn't available in D:

import somepackage.somesubpackage.*; // Import every module of the package.

Wouldn't this be useful? (just like in Java)


Tom

Walter has stated in the past that he is opposed to this idea as merely putting something in the directory could lead to conflicts and other unexpected changes.  I agree with him.  When I feel I want something like this, I create an somepackage/somesubpackage/all.d which public imports everything in that directory.

~John

Tom wrote:

> I wonder why the following syntax isn't available in D:
> 
> import somepackage.somesubpackage.*; // Import every module of the package.
> 
> Wouldn't this be useful? (just like in Java)
> 
> 
> Tom

On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 22:25:37 +0000 (UTC), Tom wrote:

> I wonder why the following syntax isn't available in D:
> 
> import somepackage.somesubpackage.*; // Import every module of the package.
> 
> Wouldn't this be useful? (just like in Java)

Not for me. I prefer knowing what is being imported, and telling future maintainers what I was expected to be imported.

-- 
Derek
(skype: derek.j.parnell)
Melbourne, Australia
23/11/2005 11:10:24 AM

In article <dm07m8$31c6$1@digitaldaemon.com>, John Demme says...
>
>Walter has stated in the past that he is opposed to this idea as merely putting something in the directory could lead to conflicts and other unexpected changes.  I agree with him.  When I feel I want something like this, I create an somepackage/somesubpackage/all.d which public imports everything in that directory.

So Java suffers from the same problem I guess. Never thought about it.

>~John
>
>Tom wrote:
>
>> I wonder why the following syntax isn't available in D:
>> 
>> import somepackage.somesubpackage.*; // Import every module of the package.
>> 
>> Wouldn't this be useful? (just like in Java)
>> 
>> 
>> Tom
>

Tom

Well, Java only kinda suffers from the problem.  With Java, all you're importing is classes.  It's much worse with D.  Since an import can bring many, many symbols into the current namespace, the problem is potentially much worse- we're not talking about just classes now, but every single non-private symbol at the module level that can come in.

~John

Tom wrote:

> In article <dm07m8$31c6$1@digitaldaemon.com>, John Demme says...
>>
>>Walter has stated in the past that he is opposed to this idea as merely putting something in the directory could lead to conflicts and other unexpected changes.  I agree with him.  When I feel I want something like this, I create an somepackage/somesubpackage/all.d which public imports everything in that directory.
> 
> So Java suffers from the same problem I guess. Never thought about it.
> 
>>~John
>>
>>Tom wrote:
>>
>>> I wonder why the following syntax isn't available in D:
>>> 
>>> import somepackage.somesubpackage.*; // Import every module of the package.
>>> 
>>> Wouldn't this be useful? (just like in Java)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Tom
>>
> 
> Tom

John Demme wrote:
> Walter has stated in the past that he is opposed to this idea as merely
> putting something in the directory could lead to conflicts and other
> unexpected changes.  I agree with him.  When I feel I want something like
> this, I create an somepackage/somesubpackage/all.d which public imports
> everything in that directory.

I'd prefer to be able to create a module 'somepackage/somesubpackage.d' for a 'somepackage/somesubpackage/' to public import items in that directory.

Currently this throws up an error though, I get the impression the D compiler checks first for isdir("somepackage/somesubpackage"), rather than isfile("somepackage/somesubpackage" ~ ".d").

Is this a minor bug or feature?