[swift-evolution] [Proposal][Discussion] Qualified Imports

[Xiaodi Wu]

Yeah, I'd be happy to lose the parentheses as well.

In the last thread, my take on simplifying the proposed syntax was:

```
import Swift using String, Int

// or, for hiding:
import Swift using Int as _
```

The key simplification here is that hiding doesn't need its own contextual
keyboard, especially if we support renaming (a huge plus in my book), as
renaming to anything unused (or explicitly to `_`) is what hiding is all
about.
On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 15:01 Brandon Knope <bknope at me.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Jul 20, 2016, at 3:08 PM, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution <
> swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>
> As Joe and others mentioned in the previous thread, this syntax could be
> greatly simplified in ways that resemble analogous facilities in other
> languages. In particular I think it's alarmingly asymmetrical that, in your
> proposal, `import Swift using (String)` imports *only* String while `import
> Swift hiding (String)` imports *everything but* String. This becomes
> evident when chained together:
>
> ```
> import Swift using (String, Int)
> // imports only String and Int
> import Swift using (String, Int) hiding (String)
> // imports only Int
> import Swift hiding (String, Int)
> // imports everything except String and Int
> import Swift hiding (String, Int) using (String)
> // imports *nothing*? nothing except String? everything except Int?
> confusing.
> ```
>
> By contrast, Joe's proposed syntax (with some riffs) produces something
> much more terse *and* much more clear:
>
> ```
> import Swift.*
> import Swift.(Int as MyInt, *)
> import Swift.(Int as _, *)
> ```
>
>
> I really don't find this much clearer than the proposed one. The proposal
> reads much clearer.
>
> Joe's syntax has a lot going on in my opinion.
>
> For the proposal, do we really need the parentheses? It makes the syntax
> look heavier
>
> Brandon
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 1:52 PM, Robert Widmann via swift-evolution <
> swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> I’d like to thank the members of the community that have guided the
>> revisions of this proposal.  We have decided to heed the advice of the
>> community and break down our original proposal on modules and qualified
>> imports into source-breaking (qualified imports) and additive (modules)
>> proposals.  As qualified imports is the change most suited to Swift 3, we
>> are pushing that proposal now as our final draft.
>>
>> It can be had inline with this email, on Github
>> <https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/pull/440>, or as a gist
>> <https://gist.github.com/CodaFi/42e5e5e94d857547abc381d9a9d0afd6>.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> ~Robert Widmann
>>
>> Qualified Imports Revisited
>>
>>    - Proposal: SE-NNNN
>>    <https://gist.github.com/CodaFi/NNNN-first-class-qualified-imports.md>
>>    - Authors: Robert Widmann <https://github.com/codafi>, TJ Usiyan
>>    <https://github.com/griotspeak>
>>    - Status: Awaiting review
>>    - Review manager: TBD
>>
>>
>> <https://gist.github.com/CodaFi/42e5e5e94d857547abc381d9a9d0afd6#introduction>
>> Introduction
>>
>> We propose a complete overhaul of the qualified imports syntax and
>> semantics.
>>
>> <https://gist.github.com/CodaFi/42e5e5e94d857547abc381d9a9d0afd6#motivation>
>> Motivation
>>
>> The existing syntax for qualified imports from modules is needlessly
>> explicit, does not compose, and has a default semantics that dilutes the
>> intended meaning of the very operation itself. Today, a qualified import
>> looks something like this
>>
>> import class Foundation.Date
>>
>> This means that clients of Foundation that wish to see only Date must
>> know the exact kind of declaration that identifier is. In addition, though
>> this import specifies exactly one class be imported from Foundation, the
>> actual semantics mean Swift will recursively open all of Foundation's
>> submodules so you can see, and use, every other identifier anyway - and
>> they are not filtered from code completion. Qualified imports deserve to be
>> first-class in Swift, and that is what we intend to make them with this
>> proposal.
>>
>> <https://gist.github.com/CodaFi/42e5e5e94d857547abc381d9a9d0afd6#proposed-solution>Proposed
>> solution
>>
>> The grammar and semantics of qualified imports will change completely
>> with the addition of *import qualifiers* and *import directives*. We
>> also introduce two new contextual keywords: using and hiding, to
>> facilitate fine-grained usage of module contents.
>>
>> <https://gist.github.com/CodaFi/42e5e5e94d857547abc381d9a9d0afd6#detailed-design>Detailed
>> design
>>
>> Qualified import syntax will be revised to the following
>>
>> import-decl -> import <import-path> <(opt) import-directive-list>
>> import-path -> <identifier>
>>             -> <identifier>.<identifier>
>> import-directive-list -> <import-directive>
>>                       -> <import-directive> <import-directive-list>
>> import-directive -> using (<identifier>, ...)
>>                  -> hiding (<identifier>, ...)
>>
>> This introduces the concept of an import *directive*. An import
>> directive is a file-local modification of an imported identifier. A
>> directive can be one of 2 operations:
>>
>> 1) *using*: The *using* directive is followed by a list of identifiers
>> for non-member nominal declarations within the imported module that should
>> be exposed to this file.
>>
>> // The only visible parts of Foundation in this file are // Foundation.Date, Foundation.DateFormatter, and Foundation.DateComponents//// Previously, this was// import class Foundation.Date// import class Foundation.DateFormatter// import class Foundation.DateComponentsimport Foundation using (Date, DateFormatter, DateComponents)
>>
>> 2) *hiding*: The hiding directive is followed by a list of identifiers
>> for non-member nominal declarations within the imported module that should
>> be hidden from this file.
>>
>> // Imports all of Foundation except `Date`import Foundation hiding (Date)
>>
>> As today, all hidden identifiers do not hide the type, they merely hide
>> that type’s members and its declaration. For example, this means values of
>> hidden types are still allowed. Unlike the existing implementation, using
>> their members is forbidden.
>>
>> // Imports `DateFormatter` but the declaration of `Date` is hidden.import Foundation using (DateFormatter)
>> var d = DateFormatter().date(from: "...") // Validvar dt : Date = DateFormatter().date(from: "...") // Invalid: Cannot use name of hidden type.
>> d.addTimeInterval(5.0) // Invalid: Cannot use members of hidden type.
>>
>> Import directives chain to one another and can be used to create a
>> fine-grained module import:
>>
>> // This imports Swift.Int, Swift.Double, and Swift.String but hides Swift.String.UTF8Viewimport Swift using (String, Int, Double)
>>              hiding (String.UTF8View)
>>
>> Directive chaining occurs left-to-right:
>>
>> // This says to 1) Use Int 2) Hide String 3) rename Double to Triple.  It is invalid// because 1) Int is available 2) String is not, error.import Swift using (Int) hiding (String)// Valid.  This will be merged as `using (Int)`import Swift using () using (Int)// Valid.  This will be merged as `hiding (String, Double)`import Swift hiding (String) hiding (Double) hiding ()// Valid (if redundant). This will be merged as `using ()`import Swift using (String) hiding (String)
>>
>> Because import directives are file-local, they will never be exported
>> along with the module that declares them.
>>
>> <https://gist.github.com/CodaFi/42e5e5e94d857547abc381d9a9d0afd6#impact-on-existing-code>Impact
>> on existing code
>>
>> Existing code that is using qualified module import syntax (import
>> {func|class|typealias|class|struct|enum|protocol} <qualified-name>) will
>> be deprecated and should be removed or migrated.
>>
>> <https://gist.github.com/CodaFi/42e5e5e94d857547abc381d9a9d0afd6#alternatives-considered>Alternatives
>> considered
>> A previous iteration of this proposal introduced an operation to allow
>> the renaming of identifiers, especially members. The original intent was to
>> allow file-local modifications of APIs consumers felt needed to conform to
>> their specific coding style. On review, we felt the feature was not as
>> significant as to warrant inclusion and was ripe for abuse in large
>> projects.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> swift-evolution mailing list
>> swift-evolution at swift.org
>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution at swift.org
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/attachments/20160720/a6ecf65b/attachment.html>