• Vathix (20/20) Jun 20 2005 It would be nice if we could import in functions, especially when
• Unknown W. Brackets (10/39) Jun 20 2005 I don't like it in functions, myself, because it just makes things
• Derek Parnell (22/25) Jun 20 2005 Yes. assert() tells you what the result is *not*, and not what the resul...

Vathix <chris dprogramming.com> writes:

It would be nice if we could import in functions, especially when  
inserting debug code.


void foo(int val)
{
    import std.stdio;
    writefln("DEBUG: val = %d", val);
}


One particularly nice use for this is when using unittests. Often times  
you want to import something just for a unittest but don't want it  
imported otherwise. Currently, we use version() or debug() to do that. It  
would be a whole lot simpler to just import right in the unittest.


Possible issues:


for(import std.string;;)
{
    // ...
}

for(;; import std.string, i++)
{
    // ...
}

"Unknown W. Brackets" <unknown simplemachines.org> writes:

I don't like it in functions, myself, because it just makes things 
harder to read - although, I suppose, that's not the language's choice 
to enforce.  Still, it wouldn't work in C either.

I do very much like it in unittests, though, myself.  Many times, you'll 
want writef for the unittest (e.g. to explain *what* failed, better than 
assert can) but you won't need std.stdio for the general (no unittest) case.

That said, it's not like it's linked in anyway (or I should hope not!), 
so it's not that huge of a deal.  I guess the module constructors/etc. 
would be called, though?

-[Unknown]


 It would be nice if we could import in functions, especially when  
 inserting debug code.
 
 
 void foo(int val)
 {
    import std.stdio;
    writefln("DEBUG: val = %d", val);
 }
 
 
 One particularly nice use for this is when using unittests. Often times  
 you want to import something just for a unittest but don't want it  
 imported otherwise. Currently, we use version() or debug() to do that. 
 It  would be a whole lot simpler to just import right in the unittest.
 
 
 Possible issues:
 
 
 for(import std.string;;)
 {
    // ...
 }
 
 for(;; import std.string, i++)
 {
    // ...
 }

Derek Parnell <derek psych.ward> writes:

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 03:22:46 -0700, Unknown W. Brackets wrote:

 I do very much like it in unittests, though, myself.  Many times, you'll 
 want writef for the unittest (e.g. to explain *what* failed, better than 
 assert can) but you won't need std.stdio for the general (no unittest) case.

Yes. assert() tells you what the result is *not*, and not what the result
is. I get around this limitation by using the debug statement.

<code>
 debug private import std.stdio;
 int doubleit(int x)
 {
    return 2 + x;
 }

 unittest {
    debug writefln("%d", doubleit(1));
    assert( doubleit(1) == 2);
 }

 void main()
 {
 }
</code>

I know its not perfect but it's not too much imposition for me.

-- 
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia
20/06/2005 9:26:45 PM