Re: Vim9 import [was Vim9 script feature-complete]

On 2022-01-03, Marvin Renich <mrvn@renich.org> wrote:
> Don't bother with the

> import MyClass from "myclass.vim"
> import {someValue, MyClass} from "thatscript.vim"
>
> syntax, and only provide
>
> import "myclass.vim"
> import "myclass.vim" as Other
>
> and require use of the namespace prefix:
>
> Other.MyClass
>
> The first case, without the "as" would default to the file name, with
> leading directories and trailing ".vim" removed

I do not think that using a filename as an identifier is a good idea.
For instance, calling a script 1.vim would automatically make it
non-importable (without "as").

I personally find that using an imported name without a prefix (as it is
currently possible) makes my code terse, and I think that in the limited
scope a plugin that works well. But I understand that Vim9 scripts might
have a broader use, such as generic libraries of functions that can be
used by many scripts. In that context, stricter scoping rules, such as
in Go, are likely a cleaner approach.

How about always requiring a prefix, but allowing explicit namespace
pollution? As in

import "myclass.vim" as Other
use Other # Makes Other.F() available as just F()

Life.


--
--
You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist.
Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_use" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vim_use+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/vim_use/sqv7uk%24gb3%241%40ciao.gmane.io.