Mirror of forum.nim-lang.org

6967 :: Naming convention when calling procs from other modules?

• jasonfi (orginal) [2020-10-21T12:48:15+02:00] view original

  I checked the style guide: https://nim-lang.org/docs/nep1.html and there's no mention of this.

  Should I call module procs with the module name like this?

  my_utils.thisIsAProc()
  Run

  Or make every proc name unique to call them like this?

  thisIsAProc()
  Run

  I like the first one better as it disambiguates the module name. Is there any general preference in the community?

---

• xigoi (orginal) [2020-10-21T13:08:25+02:00] view original

  You shouldn't explicitly qualify names unless necessary. Nim's powerful proc overloading makes sure that it's rarely necessary.

---

• jasonfi (orginal) [2020-10-21T13:23:49+02:00] view original

  Would that scale in a large code base? You'd have to be sure that every proc in every module doesn't conflict.

---

• juancarlospaco (orginal) [2020-10-21T16:28:18+02:00] view original

  my_utils.thisIsAProc cant UFCS.

---

• cdunn2001 (orginal) [2020-10-24T20:32:06+02:00] view original

  The first one (with module name) is way better if you want people to be able to read your code. I usually do this:

  from my_utils import nil
  ...
  
  my_utils.thisIsAProc()
  Run

  Unfortunately, templates generally assume that you have imported all symbols from their own module. (That's not a criticism. I wouldn't know a better way.) Sometimes I import entire standard modules, or I import a few operators specifically. But for my own modules, I try to avoid "*" imports (to borrow a name from Python), since readers would have no idea where to look.

  I suppose if your reader has an IDE that can track down the source-code, then importing "*" and dropping the namespace is fine.

---