I tried sticking an import in a unittest {} block and it caused an error.

I put it there, naturally, because I only needed that particular module for the unittests and the whole rest of the file didn't really need to see those symbols.  If you're not doing unittests there's no reason for the import overhead, and no reason to burden the user with making sure that particular testing module is present.

Scoped importing like that just not supported at this time?

--bb

Bill Baxter wrote:
> I tried sticking an import in a unittest {} block and it caused an error.
> 
> I put it there, naturally, because I only needed that particular module for the unittests and the whole rest of the file didn't really need to see those symbols.  If you're not doing unittests there's no reason for the import overhead, and no reason to burden the user with making sure that particular testing module is present.
> 
> Scoped importing like that just not supported at this time?
> 
> --bb

I've noticed that imports can be placed in a version { } block, and I'd assume inside a debug { } too.. But inside of unittest { } there's actual code being executed, so it's probably a different kind of scope.

L.

Lionello Lunesu wrote:
> Bill Baxter wrote:
>> I tried sticking an import in a unittest {} block and it caused an error.
>>
>> I put it there, naturally, because I only needed that particular module for the unittests and the whole rest of the file didn't really need to see those symbols.  If you're not doing unittests there's no reason for the import overhead, and no reason to burden the user with making sure that particular testing module is present.
>>
>> Scoped importing like that just not supported at this time?
>>
>> --bb
> 
> I've noticed that imports can be placed in a version { } block, and I'd assume inside a debug { } too.. But inside of unittest { } there's actual code being executed, so it's probably a different kind of scope.

Ok,  well that's good at least.  I wonder if there is (or could be) a version(unittest) automatically set when -unittest is used.

--bb

Bill Baxter schrieb am 2006-10-25:
> Lionello Lunesu wrote:
>> Bill Baxter wrote:
>>> I tried sticking an import in a unittest {} block and it caused an error.
>>>
>>> I put it there, naturally, because I only needed that particular module for the unittests and the whole rest of the file didn't really need to see those symbols.  If you're not doing unittests there's no reason for the import overhead, and no reason to burden the user with making sure that particular testing module is present.
>>>
>>> Scoped importing like that just not supported at this time?
>>>
>>> --bb
>> 
>> I've noticed that imports can be placed in a version { } block, and I'd assume inside a debug { } too.. But inside of unittest { } there's actual code being executed, so it's probably a different kind of scope.
>
> Ok,  well that's good at least.  I wonder if there is (or could be) a version(unittest) automatically set when -unittest is used.

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=458

Thomas

Thomas Kuehne wrote:

>>> I've noticed that imports can be placed in a version { } block, and I'd assume inside a debug { } too.. But inside of unittest { } there's actual code being executed, so it's probably a different kind of scope.
>> Ok,  well that's good at least.  I wonder if there is (or could be) a version(unittest) automatically set when -unittest is used.
> 
> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=458
> 
> Thomas

That was fast!
Thanks, Thomas.

--bb