• Id (10/10) Aug 20 2004 Hey, I'd like to know why the "import whatever.* " statement hasn't been
• Sean Kelly (7/21) Aug 20 2004 I'm not sure if I'd like this. Sure it would be more convenient, but
• antiAlias (5/26) Aug 20 2004 Yeah; I remember reading a few years ago that the Java community frowned
• Matthew (8/18) Aug 20 2004 I don't know Walter's rationale for this, but there are plenty of reason...
• Andy Friesen (14/28) Aug 20 2004 It's a good thing to have, but the wrong way to do it, for reasons
• Vathix (1/10) Aug 20 2004 Or 'package.d'. This feature would be nice.
• clayasaurus (14/29) Aug 20 2004 It might be faster to use, but it could get real annoying real quick
• J C Calvarese (11/21) Aug 20 2004 I think that the * is more dangerous than useful. (Emotionally, I like t...
• Andy Friesen (5/11) Aug 20 2004 Both of these are good conventions, but in the end, they're clumsy
• Arcane Jill (13/23) Aug 20 2004 Agreed. Instead of /any/ of the following choices:

Id <Id_member pathlink.com> writes:

Hey, I'd like to know why the "import whatever.* " statement hasn't been
included in the language yet!

Isn't it faster & cleaner to use, let's say,

import randomlib.*;

when we need to import about all those modules, instead of doing it separately
like nowadays it's done, like this?

import randomlib.Keyboard;
import randomlib.Screen;
import randomlib.Headphones;
import randomlib.Mouse;

Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> writes:

Id wrote:

 Hey, I'd like to know why the "import whatever.* " statement hasn't been
 included in the language yet!
 
 Isn't it faster & cleaner to use, let's say,
 
 import randomlib.*;
 
 when we need to import about all those modules, instead of doing it separately
 like nowadays it's done, like this?
 
 import randomlib.Keyboard;
 import randomlib.Screen;
 import randomlib.Headphones;
 import randomlib.Mouse;

I'm not sure if I'd like this.  Sure it would be more convenient, but 
just assume for a moment that someday down the road randomlib gets an 
overhaul and adds 10 more modules that I don't need.  The wildcard 
semantics would automatically include all that stuff even if I wasn't 
aware of a change.


Sean

"antiAlias" <fu bar.com> writes:

Yeah; I remember reading a few years ago that the Java community frowned
upon such practice; for the same reason you mention.

"Sean Kelly" <sean f4.ca> wrote in message
news:cg6bca$12rg$2 digitaldaemon.com...
 Id wrote:

 Hey, I'd like to know why the "import whatever.* " statement hasn't been
 included in the language yet!

 Isn't it faster & cleaner to use, let's say,

 import randomlib.*;

 when we need to import about all those modules, instead of doing it


separately
 like nowadays it's done, like this?

 import randomlib.Keyboard;
 import randomlib.Screen;
 import randomlib.Headphones;
 import randomlib.Mouse;

 I'm not sure if I'd like this.  Sure it would be more convenient, but
 just assume for a moment that someday down the road randomlib gets an
 overhaul and adds 10 more modules that I don't need.  The wildcard
 semantics would automatically include all that stuff even if I wasn't
 aware of a change.


 Sean

"Matthew" <admin.hat stlsoft.dot.org> writes:

"Id" <Id_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
news:cg6apb$12o9$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Hey, I'd like to know why the "import whatever.* " statement hasn't been
 included in the language yet!

 Isn't it faster & cleaner to use, let's say,

 import randomlib.*;

 when we need to import about all those modules, instead of doing it separately
 like nowadays it's done, like this?

 import randomlib.Keyboard;
 import randomlib.Screen;
 import randomlib.Headphones;
 import randomlib.Mouse;


I don't know Walter's rationale for this, but there are plenty of reasons
against doing things like that:

- leads to ambituities
- code dependencies are not instrumentable
- teaches sloppy habits
- precludes fine-grained selection of services from competing modules.
- makes writing a fat-free linker harder (or a linker that produces fat-free
executables)
- introduces uncertainty with respect to static initialisers from logically
unused modules

Andy Friesen <andy ikagames.com> writes:

Id wrote:

 Hey, I'd like to know why the "import whatever.* " statement hasn't been
 included in the language yet!
 
 Isn't it faster & cleaner to use, let's say,
 
 import randomlib.*;
 
 when we need to import about all those modules, instead of doing it separately
 like nowadays it's done, like this?
 
 import randomlib.Keyboard;
 import randomlib.Screen;
 import randomlib.Headphones;
 import randomlib.Mouse;

It's a good thing to have, but the wrong way to do it, for reasons 
others have already explained.

Regardless, it's pretty irritating that we're forced to tack on some 
meaningless 'all' symbol on the end of some import path or other.

Python interprets a package's __init__ module (Python is big on 
__underscores__) to represent the package as a whole.  Something like 
this would be hugely useful. (multiple directories in the search path 
which happen to have the same name can be ignored on the grounds that 
it's weird and not usually helpful to do so)

'this.d' seems a logical choice, as it's otherwise an illegal module 
name, and D's tendancy to use it for special names makes it a logical 
analogue to __python__ :)

  -- andy

"Vathix" <vathixSpamFix dprogramming.com> writes:

 Python interprets a package's __init__ module (Python is big on
 __underscores__) to represent the package as a whole.  Something like
 this would be hugely useful. (multiple directories in the search path
 which happen to have the same name can be ignored on the grounds that
 it's weird and not usually helpful to do so)

 'this.d' seems a logical choice, as it's otherwise an illegal module
 name, and D's tendancy to use it for special names makes it a logical
 analogue to __python__ :)

   -- andy

Or 'package.d'. This feature would be nice.

clayasaurus <clayasaurus gmail.com> writes:

Id wrote:
 Hey, I'd like to know why the "import whatever.* " statement hasn't been
 included in the language yet!
 
 Isn't it faster & cleaner to use, let's say,
 
 import randomlib.*;
 
 when we need to import about all those modules, instead of doing it separately
 like nowadays it's done, like this?
 
 import randomlib.Keyboard;
 import randomlib.Screen;
 import randomlib.Headphones;
 import randomlib.Mouse;
 

It might be faster to use, but it could get real annoying real quick 
because it is so ambiguous.

Why not just do
-------d file-------
module randomlib;

import Keyboard;
import Screen;
import Headphones;
import Mouse;
--------------------
-------d file-------
import randomlib; // looks better than import randomlib.*
--------------------

J C Calvarese <jcc7 cox.net> writes:

In article <cg6apb$12o9$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Id says...
Hey, I'd like to know why the "import whatever.* " statement hasn't been
included in the language yet!

Isn't it faster & cleaner to use, let's say,

import randomlib.*;

when we need to import about all those modules, instead of doing it separately
like nowadays it's done, like this?

import randomlib.Keyboard;
import randomlib.Screen;
import randomlib.Headphones;
import randomlib.Mouse;

I think that the * is more dangerous than useful. (Emotionally, I like the idea,
but I think it'd create more problems than it'd solve.)

The problem is pretty easy to alleviate by having a convention that says a
certain module imports the other modules in a package.

My favorite is all.d (short and self-explanatory). Another potential convention
is [package].d where [package] is the name of the package (did that make any
sense?). 

Related wiki page: http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?BestPractices
"Conventional Module Name for Importing All Modules in a Package"

jcc7

Andy Friesen <andy ikagames.com> writes:

J C Calvarese wrote:

 The problem is pretty easy to alleviate by having a convention that says a
 certain module imports the other modules in a package.
 
 My favorite is all.d (short and self-explanatory). Another potential convention
 is [package].d where [package] is the name of the package (did that make any
 sense?). 

Both of these are good conventions, but in the end, they're clumsy 
attempts to say something that the language explicitly forbids us from 
saying. :(

  -- andy

Arcane Jill <Arcane_member pathlink.com> writes:

In article <cg6jcv$1889$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Andy Friesen says...
J C Calvarese wrote:

 The problem is pretty easy to alleviate by having a convention that says a
 certain module imports the other modules in a package.
 
 My favorite is all.d (short and self-explanatory). Another potential convention
 is [package].d where [package] is the name of the package (did that make any
 sense?). 

Both of these are good conventions, but in the end, they're clumsy 
attempts to say something that the language explicitly forbids us from 
saying. :(

Agreed. Instead of /any/ of the following choices:





it would be nice, instead, to be able to do:



But - oh no - we can't have a file called "whatever.d" AND a directory called
"whatever" in the same place at the same time.

Jeez, I /so/ wish this rule can be changed. Walter once said "it just wouldn't
work", but that was all the explanation we got. I can envisage problems, but not
insurmountable ones.

Arcane Jill