zlacker

The biggest thing I still don’t like about Nim is its imports:

    import std/errorcodes

    proc p(x: int) {.raises.} =
      if x < 0:
        raise ErrorCode.RangeError
      use x

I can’t stand that there’s no direct connection between the thing you import and the names that wind up in your namespace.

>>kbd+(OP)
It needs to be this way so that UFCS works properly. Imagine if instead of "a,b".split(','), you had to write "a,b".(strutils.split)(',').

>>xigoi+I
ok I do not understand.

What is preventing this import std/errorcodes

from allowing me to use: raise errorcodes.RangeError instead of what Nim has?

or even why not even "import std/ErrorCodes" and having the plural in ErrorCodes.RangeError I wouldn't mind

>>kbd+(OP)
There is a direct connection, you just don't have to bother with typing it. Same as type inference, the types are still there, you just don't have to specify them. If you have a collision in name and declaration then the compiler requires you to specify which version you wanted. And with language inspection tools (like LSP or other editor integration) you can easily figure out where something comes from if you need to. Most of the time though I find it fairly obvious when programming in Nim where something comes from, in your example it's trivial to see that the error code comes from the errorcodes module.

Oh, and as someone else pointed out you can also just `from std/errorcodes import nil` and then you _have_ to specify where things come from.

>>kbd+(OP)
You are free to import nil and type the fully qualified name.

>>poloti+22
Nothing, and it fact this works. To move to an example which actually compiles:

    import math
    
    echo fcNormal
    echo FloatClass.fcNormal
    echo math.fcNormal
    echo math.FloatClass.fcNormal

All of these ways of identifying the `fcNormal` enum value works, with varying levels of specificity.

If instead you do `from math import nil` only the latter two work.

>>summar+23
There are many things to like about Nim, but it does benefit from adherence to a style guide more than most languages.

>>kbd+(OP)
Nim imports are great. I would hate to qualify everything. It feels so bureaucratic when going back to other languages. They never cause me issues and largely transparent. Best feature.

>>PMunch+v2
When I was learning Nim and learned how imports work and that things stringify with a $ function that comes along with their types (since everything is splat imported) and $ is massively overloaded I went "oh that all makes sense and works together". The LSP can help figure it out. It still feels like it's in bad taste.

It's similar to how Ruby (which also has "unstructured" imports) and Python are similar in a lot of ways yet make many opposite choices. I think a lot of Ruby's choices are "wrong" even though they fit together within the language.

>>kbd+(OP)
100% my beef with it. same style as c++ where you never know where something comes from, when clangd starts throwing one of its fits

>>ThouYS+oc1
PMunch and summarity both already said this, but because maybe code speaks louder than words (like pictures?)... This works:

    from strutils as su import nil
    echo su.split "hi there"

(You can put some parens () in there if you like, but that compiles.) So, you can do Python-style terse renames of imports with forced qualification. You just won't be able to say "hi there".(su.split) or .`su.split` or the like.

You can revive that, though, with a

    template suSplit(x): untyped = su.split x
    echo "hi there".suSplit`

That most Nim code you see will not do this is more a cultural/popularity thing that is kind of a copy-paste/survey of dev tastes thing. It's much like people using "np" as the ident in `import numpy as np`. I was doing this renaming import before it was even widely popular, but I used capital `N` for `numpy` and have had people freak out at me for such (and yet no one freaking out at Travis for not just calling it `np` in the first place).

So, it matters a little more in that this impacts how you design/demo library code/lib symbol sets and so on, but it is less of a big deal than people make it out to be. This itself is much like people pretending they are arguing about "fundamental language things", when a great deal of what they actually argue about are "common practices" or conventions. Programming language designers have precious little control over such practices.

>>kbd+tZ
Do note that unlike Python’s “import * from a; import * from b” where you have no idea where a name cam from later in the code (and e.g. changes to a and b, such as new versions, will change where a name comes from), Nim requires a name to be unambiguous, so that if “b” added a function that previously only “a” had, you’ll get a compile time error.

>>kbd+(OP)
Java is going to do the same. C already does is.

Not the best but there is precedent.