Proposal for an extension to the import syntax

[Chris Nicholson-Sauls]

Downs wrote:
> At the moment the phobos standard library packages form a very flat 
> structure.
> However, it can be anticipated that with the availability of a 1.0 spec, 
> more libraries written natively in D will arise.
> These libraries may have a far deeper and more branched package structure.
> Since D does not have a construct similar to Java's "import module.*",
> this will lead to pagefuls of import, consisting mostly of redundant
> information, and we all know redundancy is sin ^^
> Thus I propose an extension to the import syntax similar in meaning to 
> the following example:
>   import package.sub_package.vendor.[module_a, module_b, module_c];
> These groups could possibly be used recursively, e.g.
>   import package.sub_package.vendor.[module_a.[sub1, sub2], module_b];
> 
> Any feedback, improvements, criticisms are appreciated.
> Greetings.

I'll say this much.  Generally speaking, I am against adding anymore to D's import system 
as it stands -- it was an amazing sight when we got private-by-default, import aliasing, 
selective imports, and static imports.  All of these things which had been wanted at one 
time or another, and thought impossible to achieve all at once.  But Walter had one of his 
genius moments and invented a syntax that does provide all these, in a very reasonable 
manner.  (Go W!)  However, in the process, he did make it a little fragile.  I don't know 
if it could handle having anymore shoved into it than it has now.

/BUT/, I do have to admit your syntax at the very least is strangely compelling.  ;)  I 
think the longest import list I've ever had in a single module (not counting umbrella 
modules) was about ten.  I consider ten to be perfectly acceptable; so I don't know if I 
agree about deep libraries (Mango can get there sometimes) causing a problem... but I 
guess massive multi-libs and such might later on.

It has my cautious vote.

-- Chris Nicholson-Sauls