www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - Proposal: Make imports private by default

reply Bruno Medeiros <brunodomedeirosATgmail SPAM.com> writes:
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
Jul 15 2006
next sibling parent Bruno Medeiros <brunodomedeirosATgmail SPAM.com> writes:
== 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
Jul 15 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent Bruno Medeiros <brunodomedeirosATgmail SPAM.com> writes:
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
Jul 15 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "John Reimer" <terminal.node gmail.com> writes:
"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
Jul 15 2006
parent reply Bruno Medeiros <brunodomedeirosATgmail SPAM.com> writes:
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
Jul 16 2006
parent reply John Reimer <John_member pathlink.com> writes:
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
Jul 16 2006
parent reply Bruno Medeiros <brunodomedeirosATgmail SPAM.com> writes:
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
Jul 17 2006
next sibling parent John Reimer <John_member pathlink.com> writes:
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
Jul 17 2006
prev sibling parent reply Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> writes:
Bruno Medeiros wrote:
<snip>

 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


Whose fault do you think it is that, after all these decades, McD's 
still haven't worked out how to make their products healthier?

Stewart.
Jul 18 2006
next sibling parent reply David Medlock <noone nowhere.com> writes:
Stewart Gordon wrote:

 Bruno Medeiros wrote:
 <snip>
 

 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


 
 
 Whose fault do you think it is that, after all these decades, McD's 
 still haven't worked out how to make their products healthier?
 
 Stewart.


The people with the money - the consumers where it should be.
There are plenty of healthier products around, but people use their 
freedom to choose Miccey Ds'.

-DavidM
Jul 18 2006
parent reply John Reimer <John_member pathlink.com> writes:
In article <e9j9tj$1m5b$1 digitaldaemon.com>, David Medlock says...

Stewart Gordon wrote:

 Bruno Medeiros wrote:
 <snip>
 

 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


 
 
 Whose fault do you think it is that, after all these decades, McD's 
 still haven't worked out how to make their products healthier?
 
 Stewart.


The people with the money - the consumers where it should be.
There are plenty of healthier products around, but people use their 
freedom to choose Miccey Ds'.

-DavidM



Yes, that's what drug dealers tend to like to point out too.

-JJR
Jul 18 2006
next sibling parent reply jcc7 <jcc7_member pathlink.com> writes:
In article <e9jcs7$1pms$1 digitaldaemon.com>, John Reimer says...

In article <e9j9tj$1m5b$1 digitaldaemon.com>, David Medlock says...

Stewart Gordon wrote:

 Bruno Medeiros wrote:
 <snip>
 

 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


 
 
 Whose fault do you think it is that, after all these decades, McD's 
 still haven't worked out how to make their products healthier?
 
 Stewart.


The people with the money - the consumers where it should be.
There are plenty of healthier products around, but people use their 
freedom to choose Miccey Ds'.

-DavidM



Yes, that's what drug dealers tend to like to point out too.


Fine. But cholesterol isn't an illegal substance (at least not in any country
that I'm aware of).

jcc7
Jul 18 2006
parent John Reimer <John_member pathlink.com> writes:
In article <e9jj2e$208t$1 digitaldaemon.com>, jcc7 says...

In article <e9jcs7$1pms$1 digitaldaemon.com>, John Reimer says...

In article <e9j9tj$1m5b$1 digitaldaemon.com>, David Medlock says...

Stewart Gordon wrote:

 Bruno Medeiros wrote:
 <snip>
 

 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


 
 
 Whose fault do you think it is that, after all these decades, McD's 
 still haven't worked out how to make their products healthier?
 
 Stewart.


The people with the money - the consumers where it should be.
There are plenty of healthier products around, but people use their 
freedom to choose Miccey Ds'.

-DavidM



Yes, that's what drug dealers tend to like to point out too.


Fine. But cholesterol isn't an illegal substance (at least not in any country
that I'm aware of).

jcc7



Thist topic was quite cleverly steered away from the original analogy.  A much
more "grey" example was given to accomodate Bruno's purposes.  I avoided giving
the example too much attention because I knew it could lead to such a debate.
Alas, I guess I was unsuccessful.

BTW, cholesterol is much less the issue then one would think these days; it's a
popular measure in the medical profession that is proving to be a less accurate
assessment of why people get heart disease; there's a whole lot more going on in
the western diet (including exercise and nutrition) than people realize and
fixing cholesterol levels alone is NOT a solution, and in fact may have little
effect at all; the medical profession, though, is a science that loves to
analyze signs and symptoms and treat them on a individual bases; blood
cholesterol is one such sign and is oft treated with drug therapies that have
doubtful positive effects in people, especially when they are not taking
corrective lifestyle action.  People eat and live unhealthily period, with or
without McDonalds; so in this sense, I think McDonalds is really not the major
issue here.  Cigarette companies, on the other hand, do have a much more
subversive involvement (as much evidence has shown in court cases and such over
the years).  And that was why I chose it as an appropriate anology for the
sitation.  Bruno deflated the argument by bringing in a fairly non-parallel
comparison and then implied that I thought it to be equivalent (which I most
certainly do not).

Illegal substances or not, the underlying "complaint" was the total indifference
to the human condition, and a company's or individual's ability to benefit
(finacially or otherwise) from addictions and the weaknesses inherent in human
kind.  That however, in itself, is a very difficult issue to argue or measure in
the grand scheme of things: how do we blame an individuals weaknesses (which
could amount to anything) on a company?  Theoretically anything can be an
addiction.  The answer is that we can't, and that wasn't what I was getting at
originally.  

Instead what I do claim is that there is a lot of evidence pointing to many
examples of industry /knowingly/ taking advantage of cosumerism and disregarding
well-documented ill-effects and dependency engendered in large proportions of
society.  There is no argument in these cases and the smoking industry is one of
them.

Secondly and more importantly, my question encompasses the "spirit of the
matter" and not the "letter of the law", in which we (who care enough) should
make a conscientious effort to think about end results.  We may decide that
certain companies have a legal right to do what they do, but if we really felt a
genuine care and desire to help those that need and want help (but have
difficulty changing without out), would we feel the obligation of making
approproate changes? 

Companies are not abstract operations, but are made up of real people that make
real decisions.  They still have the ability to make choices, just like the
people that buy their products.  You can never absolve them of complete moral
responsibility.  The problem with our systems today is that we do absolve them
and dump the burden completely on the people.  We laugh and say, "well, we can't
help it if people are stupid!". Please remember, humans are fragile... they need
help! Let's not mock people that are weak and suffering or incapable of escaping
the snares that entrap them. Let's consider carefully what benefits are trully
worthwhile.  Money shouldn't be the center of all decision making.

If we regard companies or individuals as having the right to "prey" on such
inadequacies, fine.  Then, sadly, we remove all argument against professions
commonly regarded as feeding the common "vices" of smoking, alcohol,
pornography, and gambling (or even some TV evangelists that make a bundle tithes
and offerings).  The mere fact that drugs are illegal is irrelevant to this
discussion.  In some countries, they are not illegal.  Alcohol was once illegal
in the US, if you recall.  The fact that the government legalizes some of these
or not is of no bearing on the argument. But the thought process behind legal
and illegal activities continue to be the same when money is at the center of
it.

The original issue was proposals and D: my point was directly related to
application of a proposals and voting systems in D, making people feel like they
were providing a means to changing D, and falsely raising hopes of the success
of such an effort.  The letter of the law might say this: if the object is
merely accomplishing the general happiness of a group of people, perhaps that
purpose is sufficient for those that believe in it.  Adopting that style of
reasoning promotes the hedonistic principle, should you ascribe to it, but
speaks little of the actual benefits beyond "good feelings", which are very
likely temporary and subjective (can you imagine every body is made happy by the
same thing?).  But the "spirit of the matter" is to realize that time is wasted,
language influence is minimal, and people are confused and disappointed in the
end.  That was my concern, more or less.  Furthermore, I was concerned about
Bruno's promotion of the matter when prior efforts had already accomplished as
much of the task as seemed necessary. 

People appear to disagree with this. I accept that, since those that do NOT want
to be helped will not be helped.  In that case, those people do take
responsibility for their own actions.  But realize that those who are the
promoters of certain ideas that cause such confusion have their own separate
part in responsibility.  If you cloud that responsibility with doubt, then the
final result is that no industry, no president of a country, no CEO of a
corporation, has any responsibility for the actions they take in the interest of
their own community (which may be a business or country). I'm sure some leaders
would love that kind of vindication.

-JJR
Jul 18 2006
prev sibling parent David Medlock <noone nowhere.com> writes:
John Reimer wrote:

 In article <e9j9tj$1m5b$1 digitaldaemon.com>, David Medlock says...
 

Stewart Gordon wrote:


Bruno Medeiros wrote:
<snip>


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



Whose fault do you think it is that, after all these decades, McD's 
still haven't worked out how to make their products healthier?

Stewart.


The people with the money - the consumers where it should be.
There are plenty of healthier products around, but people use their 
freedom to choose Miccey Ds'.

-DavidM


 
 
 
 Yes, that's what drug dealers tend to like to point out too.
 
 -JJR
 
 


There is no corporation anywhere who can make you buy/do anything 
without your say so(or government's assistance).  If any does you should 
call the police.

Government on the other hand has the legal right to take your property, 
lock you up, and make you purchase goods and services from specific 
entities.  When you have them authority over something they keep it with 
a deathgrip.

Drugs are actually a much thornier issue.

99.9% of the problem most people have with drugs are kids- which 
ironically is a problem because they are government enforced 
monopoly(yes there are private schools, but you still have to pay for 
the public ones even if you don't have kids).


-DavidM
Jul 19 2006
prev sibling parent jcc7 <jcc7_member pathlink.com> writes:
In article <e9j80l$1k8c$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Stewart Gordon says...

Bruno Medeiros wrote:
<snip>

 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


Whose fault do you think it is that, after all these decades, McD's 
still haven't worked out how to make their products healthier?


The people (like me) who continue to enjoy their cheeseburgers.

McDonalds isn't a government institution. They will only continue to exist as
long as their products are being bought by customers.

jcc7
Jul 18 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent reply =?iso-8859-1?q?Knud_S=F8rensen?= <12tkvvb02 sneakemail.com> writes:
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
Jul 16 2006
parent reply Bruno Medeiros <brunodomedeirosATgmail SPAM.com> writes:
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
Jul 17 2006
next sibling parent reply jcc7 <jcc7_member pathlink.com> writes:
In article <e9g5q6$81k$2 digitaldaemon.com>, Bruno Medeiros says...

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)


He wrote in http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D/29517:


 Indeed. I think a feature/change feedback system would be nice (even 
 if a simple one), but I don't think a poll system works at all for that
 purpose. One should have a voting/ranking for each individual
 feature/change, not a ranking amongst them. And it would also need 
 the following:
* User Autentication (to avoid duplicate votes)
* Allow negative voting. (i.e. deslike)


Well, the wiki doesn't exactly solve the duplicate votes problem either since
people could still log in under multiple names (though the wiki would alleviate
the problem). I suppose it would allow "negative" voting, though.

jcc7
Jul 17 2006
parent Bruno Medeiros <brunodomedeirosATgmail SPAM.com> writes:
jcc7 wrote:

 In article <e9g5q6$81k$2 digitaldaemon.com>, Bruno Medeiros says...

 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)


 
 He wrote in http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D/29517:
 

 Indeed. I think a feature/change feedback system would be nice (even 
 if a simple one), but I don't think a poll system works at all for that
 purpose. One should have a voting/ranking for each individual
 feature/change, not a ranking amongst them. And it would also need 
 the following:
 * User Autentication (to avoid duplicate votes)
 * Allow negative voting. (i.e. deslike)


 
 Well, the wiki doesn't exactly solve the duplicate votes problem either since
 people could still log in under multiple names (though the wiki would alleviate
 the problem). I suppose it would allow "negative" voting, though.
 
 jcc7


When I said that a poll system wouldn't work for that, I didn't mean as 
to prevent abuse. I meant just that I prefer an absolute ranking(with a 
possible textual comment) rather a relative numeric ranking.
I didn't think about ranking abuse, and I hope that we are not yet at a 
stage that we have to worry about that.

-- 
Bruno Medeiros - CS/E student
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?BrunoMedeiros#D
Jul 18 2006
prev sibling parent =?iso-8859-1?q?Knud_S=F8rensen?= <12tkvvb02 sneakemail.com> writes:
Thanks, I don't think I ever got around to those posts.


 Yes, I often thought that the scoring algorithm for this poll is wrong.


Well, the eigenpoll where never designed to be used as a feature request
system, so the rank on the ranking page may seems a little strange. 

The ranking on 
http://all-technology.com/eigenpolls/dwishlist/story.php
is an acceptance vote and should be okey for this type of thing.


 Indeed. I think a feature/change feedback system would be nice (even if
 a simple one), 


Here we agree ;-)


 but I don't think a poll system works at all for that purpose. 


I don't agree here as a developer it is nice to have some feedback
on what the users want without being flooded with mails.
The developer still decide what gos into the app.
  

One should have a voting/ranking for each individual
feature/change, not a ranking amongst them. 


Well, I strongly disagree here. 
Ranking provide much more information, and when you have the 
users ranking you can generate results for many of the known 
voting systems.   


And it would also need the following:
* User Autentication (to avoid duplicate votes) * Allow negative voting.
(i.e. deslike)


Well, eigenpoll where designed specific so that it could be used 
to get feedback from users without login.
The philosophy is that it is better to get much feedback than little
feedback and most people don't bother to make a username to take a poll
and that gaming is fairly easy to spot.

Especially people who know a lot have many projects and are very busy
and this type of people is the target audience for the eigenpoll.

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 15:12:39 +0100, Bruno Medeiros wrote:


 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)
Jul 17 2006
prev sibling parent Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> writes:
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:
 
 == Make imports private by default ==
 
 -- Description --
 All import statements which do not have a "protection" attribute should 
 default to private, instead of public.


<snip>

It would strike me as inconsistent, considering that everything else is 
public by default.  Moreover, I can imagine that people would begin to 
ask for a keyword to reset protection to the default, if not for 
practical use then for the sake of completeness.

Stewart.
Jul 18 2006