Mirror of forum.nim-lang.org

7814 :: Nim convention for multiple imports?

• xioren (orginal) [2021-04-18T02:49:52+02:00] view original

  import this
  import that
  import other
  Run

  import this, that, other
  Run

  import
    this, that, other
  Run

  import std/[this, that, other]
  Run

  Something else?

---

• ElegantBeef (orginal) [2021-04-18T02:55:38+02:00] view original

  import std/[this, that, other] is the convention for multiple imports from a single directory.

---

• xioren (orginal) [2021-04-18T02:58:41+02:00] view original

  gotcha, thanks

---

• jackhftang (orginal) [2021-04-18T03:05:09+02:00] view original

  IMO, there are languages designed to limit the number of ways of express things. Those languages are usually intended to be used in enterprise environment, so that everyone somehow write syntactically same code.

  Nim, on the other hand, is more indie, more free style. All your examples are valid expressions to import modules.

---

• xioren (orginal) [2021-04-18T03:11:22+02:00] view original

  Sure they're valid. In python both:

  import this, that, other
  Run

  
  import this that other
  Run

  are valid but pep-8 guidelines encourage the latter for explicitness. My question was whether there is similarly a preferred way of importing in Nim.

---

• ElegantBeef (orginal) [2021-04-18T03:13:56+02:00] view original

  I tend to block imports as scope.

  import std/[a, b, c]
  import thing, thingA, thingB # Local Scope
  import somepackage/[a,b,c] # From a package
  Run

---

• doofenstein (orginal) [2021-04-18T04:44:33+02:00] view original

  I love the block syntaxes in Nim, so what I do is this:

  import
    first, second, third,
    
    a, b,
    c, d
  Run

  Everything is neatly sorted, but there's no visual clutter which would be there if everything was prefixed with an import statement.

  Usually I put standard library stuff first.

---