digitalmars.D - Module self-imports
- Andrej Mitrovic (14/14) Oct 04 2012 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8447
- Dmitry Olshansky (7/21) Oct 05 2012 I suspect that we can't break code. So the only thing I'd want now is
- Andrei Alexandrescu (5/19) Oct 05 2012 Interesting. I don't see what bugs or inefficiencies that might cause,
- David Nadlinger (9/12) Oct 05 2012 I'd strongly second that. With disallowing self-imports, using
- Andrej Mitrovic (4/7) Oct 05 2012 I don't see either, but Dmitry mentioned he had forward reference
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8447 There's a bunch of self-imports (only a few) in Phobos, they're usually in unittest blocks. I'm thinking this was put there for convenience (so you can copy the snippet into a different module and get an import statement for free). Question: Should self-imports be banned? And if so, should they be completely banned or only banned in module scope (allow them in function/unittest blocks)? I have a gut feeling that many people inadvertently (or on purpose) have self-imports in their projects, and if this was banned there might be a lot of projects that stopped compiling. *Note*: I'm talking about direct self-imports, meaning A->A, not A->B->A: module foo.bar; import foo.bar; // would be an error
Oct 04 2012
On 05-Oct-12 07:43, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8447 There's a bunch of self-imports (only a few) in Phobos, they're usually in unittest blocks. I'm thinking this was put there for convenience (so you can copy the snippet into a different module and get an import statement for free).Haven't thought of that.Question: Should self-imports be banned? And if so, should they be completely banned or only banned in module scope (allow them in function/unittest blocks)?I suspect that we can't break code. So the only thing I'd want now is for these statements to *truly* have no effect. It seemed to have some ;)I have a gut feeling that many people inadvertently (or on purpose) have self-imports in their projects, and if this was banned there might be a lot of projects that stopped compiling. *Note*: I'm talking about direct self-imports, meaning A->A, not A->B->A: module foo.bar; import foo.bar; // would be an error-- Dmitry Olshansky
Oct 05 2012
On 10/4/12 11:43 PM, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8447 There's a bunch of self-imports (only a few) in Phobos, they're usually in unittest blocks. I'm thinking this was put there for convenience (so you can copy the snippet into a different module and get an import statement for free). Question: Should self-imports be banned? And if so, should they be completely banned or only banned in module scope (allow them in function/unittest blocks)? I have a gut feeling that many people inadvertently (or on purpose) have self-imports in their projects, and if this was banned there might be a lot of projects that stopped compiling. *Note*: I'm talking about direct self-imports, meaning A->A, not A->B->A: module foo.bar; import foo.bar; // would be an errorInteresting. I don't see what bugs or inefficiencies that might cause, so I'd say by the TAWD (Turtles All the Way Down) principle we should allow them as a no-op. Andrei
Oct 05 2012
On Friday, 5 October 2012 at 11:46:04 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:Interesting. I don't see what bugs or inefficiencies that might cause, so I'd say by the TAWD (Turtles All the Way Down) principle we should allow them as a no-op.I'd strongly second that. With disallowing self-imports, using imports in both string and template mixins might become a major pain. I can't see a good reason why self-imports should be more problematic than normal forward references within a module, since they can just be ignored. David
Oct 05 2012
On 10/5/12, David Nadlinger <see klickverbot.at> wrote:I can't see a good reason why self-imports should be more problematic than normal forward references within a module, since they can just be ignored.I don't see either, but Dmitry mentioned he had forward reference issues. Maybe *that* should be fixed instead, but we need a test-case first. :)
Oct 05 2012