Following the recent generalized discussion about imports, and the entry in the wiki of proposals of new kinds of imports, and also the idea I've mentioned before of using the wiki to keep track of proposals, I have launched this thread as the primary point of discussion for a very well known and familiar proposal:

== Make imports private by default ==

-- Description --
All import statements which do not have a "protection" attribute should default to private, instead of public.


-- Rationale (PROS) --
It is argued that private imports constitute the vast majority of imports in D code, and as such, for the sake of brevity, they should be the default.

==========

I have created a wiki entry for this proposal:
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?DCP_DefaultPrivateImports

I also tried, with that proposal, to create and experiment with a set of  ideas for creating and managing proposals(the D Change Proposal). This is discussed in another thread.

Use this thread for discussion of this proposal. If you think there is anything relevant to say (or re-say), do so. And do place your vote/opinion on the wiki entry. :)


-- 
Bruno Medeiros - CS/E student
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?BrunoMedeiros#D

== Make imports private by default ==

Repost from the discussion in the other thread:
(news://news.digitalmars.com:119/e8vvk3$1no9$1@digitaldaemon.com)

=== Bruno Medeiros wrote: ===
Walter Bright wrote:
>
>> OT: if you'll be changing the import system, _PLEASE_ make private imports the default.
>
> It's too late for that, sorry. Also, everything else in D is public by default, and consistency is sometimes better than special case rules, even if those special case rules make some things easier.

Nonsense, of course it's not too late! In fact, for this change in particular, it's quite easy to write a trivial script that can easily convert from one syntax to the other, without errors. So if you want to argue about this proposal, do so regarding it's merits only, not compatibility.

So about the consistency issue: I too think consistency and orthogonality are very important (maybe even more than you :P ), but the key thing to notice here is that a (private) import is not defining new members of a module. It's not creating a new entity or entities. I view an import as very different from defining a class, struct, variable, function, etc., and therefore I don't find it inconsistent for the default protection to be different.

In fact, I even have some doubts about the whole thing of imports having protection attributes in the first place. It wouldn't strike me as odd if import was protectionless, working only the same as the current "private import", and that the functionality of the current "public import" were achieved in some other way like "alias somemodule.*;" or "aliasimport somemodule;" or something like that.

=> One clue that an import is different from any other declarations with protection attributes, is that its names go to a secondary namespace. That's inconsistency right there. (if you view the imports the same as the other things)

=== end repost ===

-- 
Bruno Medeiros - CS/E student
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?BrunoMedeiros#D

Some say the following post by Walter:
news://news.digitalmars.com:119/e93hja$1sfu$1@digitaldaemon.com
Namely the "I think you've made a pretty good case for it. " means that Walter had agreed to this proposal. Is this correct? It doesn't seem that clear to me.

-- 
Bruno Medeiros - CS/E student
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?BrunoMedeiros#D

"Bruno Medeiros" <brunodomedeirosATgmail@SPAM.com> wrote in message news:e9bcof$1iki$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Following the recent generalized discussion about imports, and the entry in the wiki of proposals of new kinds of imports, and also the idea I've mentioned before of using the wiki to keep track of proposals, I have launched this thread as the primary point of discussion for a very well known and familiar proposal:
>
> == Make imports private by default ==
>
> -- Description --
> All import statements which do not have a "protection" attribute should default to private, instead of public.
>
>
> -- Rationale (PROS) --
> It is argued that private imports constitute the vast majority of imports in D code, and as such, for the sake of brevity, they should be the default.
>
> ==========
>
> I have created a wiki entry for this proposal:
> http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?DCP_DefaultPrivateImports
>
> I also tried, with that proposal, to create and experiment with a set of ideas for creating and managing proposals(the D Change Proposal). This is discussed in another thread.
>
> Use this thread for discussion of this proposal. If you think there is anything relevant to say (or re-say), do so. And do place your vote/opinion on the wiki entry. :)
>
>
> -- 
> Bruno Medeiros - CS/E student
> http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?BrunoMedeiros#D


These proposals are piling higher and deeper.  What is this accomplishing? Hasn't this topic been beaten half to death?  Why do more proposals need to be pushed forward?  What does this "voting" accomplish? This is getting altogether silly!  The voting ritual is something oft repeated in this newsgroup; and unfortunately, it continues to promote the false sense that the community is actually changing D.  Please stop this.  It might as well be called propaganda! It's a waste of time beyond giving everybody that warm fuzzy feeling about improving D.  Port D code or make D libraries: you'll get that fuzzy feeling and actually be doing something productive all at once.

-JJR 

John Reimer wrote:
> 
> "Bruno Medeiros" <brunodomedeirosATgmail@SPAM.com> wrote in message news:e9bcof$1iki$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>> Following the recent generalized discussion about imports, and the entry in the wiki of proposals of new kinds of imports, and also the idea I've mentioned before of using the wiki to keep track of proposals, I have launched this thread as the primary point of discussion for a very well known and familiar proposal:
>>
>> == Make imports private by default ==
>>
>> -- Description --
>> All import statements which do not have a "protection" attribute should default to private, instead of public.
>>
>>
>> -- Rationale (PROS) --
>> It is argued that private imports constitute the vast majority of imports in D code, and as such, for the sake of brevity, they should be the default.
>>
>> ==========
>>
>> I have created a wiki entry for this proposal:
>> http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?DCP_DefaultPrivateImports
>>
>> I also tried, with that proposal, to create and experiment with a set of ideas for creating and managing proposals(the D Change Proposal). This is discussed in another thread.
>>
>> Use this thread for discussion of this proposal. If you think there is anything relevant to say (or re-say), do so. And do place your vote/opinion on the wiki entry. :)
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Bruno Medeiros - CS/E student
>> http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?BrunoMedeiros#D
> 
> 
> These proposals are piling higher and deeper.  What is this accomplishing? Hasn't this topic been beaten half to death?  Why do more proposals need to be pushed forward?  What does this "voting" accomplish? This is getting altogether silly!  The voting ritual is something oft repeated in this newsgroup; and unfortunately, it continues to promote the false sense that the community is actually changing D.  Please stop this.  It might as well be called propaganda! It's a waste of time beyond giving everybody that warm fuzzy feeling about improving D.  Port D code or make D libraries: you'll get that fuzzy feeling and actually be doing something productive all at once.
> 
> -JJR

I'm well aware, and I'm sure other voters are, that the "votes" are merely representative of one's opinion, and hold no real decision power. Walter holds all the decision power. That's actually why I preferred the term "rating" over "voting".
If anyone thinks this proposals are to give "the comunity the power to change D" then that person is the one who is making a false assumption, and "promoting the false sense" of that, not me.

-- 
Bruno Medeiros - CS/E student
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?BrunoMedeiros#D

In article <e9dkp8$pmo$2@digitaldaemon.com>, Bruno Medeiros says...

>> These proposals are piling higher and deeper.  What is this accomplishing? Hasn't this topic been beaten half to death?  Why do more proposals need to be pushed forward?  What does this "voting" accomplish? This is getting altogether silly!  The voting ritual is something oft repeated in this newsgroup; and unfortunately, it continues to promote the false sense that the community is actually changing D.  Please stop this.  It might as well be called propaganda! It's a waste of time beyond giving everybody that warm fuzzy feeling about improving D.  Port D code or make D libraries: you'll get that fuzzy feeling and actually be doing something productive all at once.
>> 
>> -JJR
>
>I'm well aware, and I'm sure other voters are, that the "votes" are
>merely representative of one's opinion, and hold no real decision power.
>Walter holds all the decision power. That's actually why I preferred the
>term "rating" over "voting".
>If anyone thinks this proposals are to give "the comunity the power to
>change D" then that person is the one who is making a false assumption,
>and "promoting the false sense" of that, not me.
>


Compare the above statement to cigarette industry that might say:

"I'm sure smokers are aware of the health risks created by our products.  If anyone things smoking is a benign activity, well that's their own fault.  We take no responsibility for their addictions.  Our PR and advertisements are just the way business is done.  It's our client's fault for maintaining that false sense of security."

"Incidentally, we prefer to call it 'relaxation therapy' rather than 'smoking'. It makes everybody feel so much more at ease."

My point: while indeed the smoker must take responsibility, please realize that the one promoting is not without fault; in fact, I believe their actions should be considered quite insidious.

-JJR

On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 19:40:31 +0100, Bruno Medeiros wrote:

> Following the recent generalized discussion about imports, and the entry in the wiki of proposals of new kinds of imports, and also the idea I've mentioned before of using the wiki to keep track of proposals, I have launched this thread as the primary point of discussion for a very well known and familiar proposal:

Bruno are you familiar with the D wish list ?? http://all-technology.com/eigenpolls/dwishlist/

http://all-technology.com/eigenpolls/dwishlist/story.php

John Reimer wrote:
> In article <e9dkp8$pmo$2@digitaldaemon.com>, Bruno Medeiros says...
> 
>>> These proposals are piling higher and deeper.  What is this accomplishing? Hasn't this topic been beaten half to death?  Why do more proposals need to be pushed forward?  What does this "voting" accomplish? This is getting altogether silly!  The voting ritual is something oft repeated in this newsgroup; and unfortunately, it continues to promote the false sense that the community is actually changing D.  Please stop this.  It might as well be called propaganda! It's a waste of time beyond giving everybody that warm fuzzy feeling about improving D.  Port D code or make D libraries: you'll get that fuzzy feeling and actually be doing something productive all at once.
>>>
>>> -JJR
>> I'm well aware, and I'm sure other voters are, that the "votes" are merely representative of one's opinion, and hold no real decision power. Walter holds all the decision power. That's actually why I preferred the term "rating" over "voting".
>> If anyone thinks this proposals are to give "the comunity the power to change D" then that person is the one who is making a false assumption, and "promoting the false sense" of that, not me.
>>
> 
> 
> Compare the above statement to cigarette industry that might say: 
> 
> "I'm sure smokers are aware of the health risks created by our products.  If
> anyone things smoking is a benign activity, well that's their own fault.  We
> take no responsibility for their addictions.  Our PR and advertisements are just
> the way business is done.  It's our client's fault for maintaining that false
> sense of security."
> 
> "Incidentally, we prefer to call it 'relaxation therapy' rather than 'smoking'.
> It makes everybody feel so much more at ease."
> 
> My point: while indeed the smoker must take responsibility, please realize that
> the one promoting is not without fault; in fact, I believe their actions should
> be considered quite insidious.
> 
> -JJR
> 
> 

Well, I happen to think that smokers take sole responsibility for the health risks of smoking. Do you also think that the fault of people getting fat eating at MacDonalds is MacDonalds's fault? :P

-- 
Bruno Medeiros - CS/E student
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?BrunoMedeiros#D

Knud Sørensen wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 19:40:31 +0100, Bruno Medeiros wrote:
> 
>> Following the recent generalized discussion about imports, and the entry in the wiki of proposals of new kinds of imports, and also the idea I've mentioned before of using the wiki to keep track of proposals, I have launched this thread as the primary point of discussion for a very well known and familiar proposal:
> 
> Bruno are you familiar with the D wish list ?? http://all-technology.com/eigenpolls/dwishlist/
> 
> http://all-technology.com/eigenpolls/dwishlist/story.php

Yes I am, remember this? :
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/29253.html
(see the last post)

-- 
Bruno Medeiros - CS/E student
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?BrunoMedeiros#D

In article <e9g5nu$81k$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Bruno Medeiros says...

>> 
>> 
>
>Well, I happen to think that smokers take sole responsibility for the health risks of smoking. Do you also think that the fault of people getting fat eating at MacDonalds is MacDonalds's fault? :P
>


Hmm... You seem to be stubbornly refusing to see the point. Quite astounding, actually.  Even worse, you entirely dismiss my point by craftily rephrasing my own analogy in the form of a personal question that distracts the reader from the intended conclusion.  What a slippery fish you are. You really should become a politician. :)

Please go back and read my opinion again. No... wait.... on second thought, don't bother.  I'm not sure it's worth netting you on this one. In this and other posts, you've made it abundanlty clear what type of person you are.

You are willfully ignorant and stubbornly blind, impossible to correct.  As long as you are so, you have no "wisdom" to share here (although, sadly, you may find that others are still quite willing to gobble up whatever you expound upon).

I've said my piece.  I will not comment further.

-JJR