Re: 2.8 -> 3.0?

Having said that... I do think that we could use a good shortcut syntax for both package declaration and imports.So the proposal is still very valid!

On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 8:13 PM, Kevin Wright <kev.lee.wright@googlemail.com> wrote:

regarding miles' import change proposal...
The new package syntax looks as though it allows package declarations and imports to follow the same pattern. I like this idea, as I tend to think of them as reciprocal...
Hopefully, it's going to help adoption if we can combine some more of our idioms like this.

On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 7:59 PM, Miles Sabin <miles@milessabin.com> wrote:

On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 7:08 PM, martin odersky<martin.odersky@epfl.ch> wrote:
> The recent discussion on package nesting seems to reach the conclusion
> that we should modify the rules, and that we should accept the
> backwards incompatibilies this would incur. I.e. if you wrote
> previously
>
>  package x.y.z
>  ...
>
> members of the outer package x.y would be visible. Now, to get the
> same effect, you'd have to write
>
>  package x.y
>  package z
>  ...
>
> I think this is a net improvement, because we will pull in a new scope
> only by an explicit declaration, not silently by writing a path in a
> package clause.

Out of interest, what are your reasons for preferring this mechanism
over my suggestion of enhancing imports?

http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A-Nested-package-scopes-vs.-Imports-(Was%3A-Revisiting--absolute-relative-paths)-p24546471.html

Cheers,


Miles

--
Miles Sabin
tel: +44 (0)7813 944 528
skype:  milessabin
http://www.chuusai.com/
http://twitter.com/milessabin