allow multiple mod or extern mod inclusions per stmt

[thestinger]

Either mod foo, bar, baz or mod {foo, bar, baz}. I would prefer leaving off the braces as they would be fully redundant without adding clarity.

[adrientetar]

Braces are already in place for multiple use statements so we will need consistency I think.

[thestinger]

Using a noisier syntax with redundancy for the sake of consistency doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. If it's not providing additional clarity, then why have it? I'm not sure what the rationale was for removing the cleaner syntax for use statements. If it's not going to look clean... then I'd rather not have this feature at all.

[flaper87]

I kinda agree with @thestinger here. I'm always leaning towards consistency, however, I don't think it makes a whole lot of sense in this case. I'd vote for mod foo, bar, baz.

If this makes sense to people and we want to go down that road, I'd love to work on a fix for this myself.

[huonw]

Attributes like /** docs */ mod foo, bar; would either need to be an error under this scheme; or be shared across all modules.

[alexcrichton]

I think that @huonw has a good point about multiple module declarations and documentation. I would be more in favor of adding extern crate {foo, bar, baz}; to the language than mod foo, bar, baz;

[huonw]

extern crate foo, bar, baz; can also have attributes. (I don't think documentation was a very good example, since the most common & sensible thing to do is to have the documentation inside the module itself.)

[flaper87]

I'm still leaning towards extern crate foo, bar, baz I think it is syntactically correct because the crates listed there don't share a namespace as opposed to use std::libc::{...}

If this sounds like something for 1.0, i could be done as part of #9880 I'd be happy to work on this since I already signed up for the other one.

[huonw]

Another thing with crates is the extern crate foo = "something#foo;1.0"; syntax; would that become extern crate foo = "stuff", bar = "other#stuff", baz = "even_more#stuff"?

[ben0x539]

fwiw, since it took me some time to find it again, use-statements bringing multiple top-level non-pathy identifiers into scope via a braced list happened in #10806.

[sinistersnare]

Was about to create an issue of this when i remembered that this was created!

I totally think we should do this, and am on the fence about keeping consistency with the use statement by using curly brackets.

extern crate {crate1, crate2, crate3};
extern crate {firstcrate = "crate1", secondcrate = "crate2"};

[liigo]

+1, like it
2014年2月25日 上午4:39于 "Davis Silverman" notifications@github.com写道：

Was about to create an issue of this when i remembered that this was
created!

I totally think we should do this, and am on the fence about keeping
consistency with the use statement by using curly brackets.

extern crate {crate1, crate2, crate3};extern crate {firstcrate = "crate1", secondcrate = "crate2"};

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/11819#issuecomment-35932922
.

[sinistersnare]

I think that this proposal should go through the RFC process. What does everyone think?

[pnkfelix]

Closing: @sinistersnare is correct, a change like this needs to go through the RFC process that we have instated: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs

[sinistersnare]

I will see if i can write something up for discussion.