Proposal for an extension to the import syntax

[BCS]

John Reimer wrote:
> 
> Massive imports will happen.  It's only a matter of time as huge 
> projects  start rolling out.  "all.d" has been a popular workaround.  
> But, once  again, I think all.d is not optimal and only acts as a red 
> flag that  reveals a future need.
> 
> I think in circumstances like this, Walter is willing to wait until  
> experience forces the issue back to the forefront (and I think it will  
> reappear). In fact, I'm sure this is the way many new D features will  
> appear in the future, especially as complex cases start identifying 
> needs  in large commercial projects.
> 
> I do think we need a muli-import style eventually -- something that is  
> safe, something that is clear in regards to intent.  The suggestion 
> made  by downs is a start and shows a alertness to the potential 
> problems of a  multi-import syntax.  Maybe the idea can be further 
> developed to improve  the syntax.
> 
> -JJR

Good points.

I think that operational model of "don't fix things that don't need it" 
is a good idea. That is as long as you DO fix things that need it and 
keep an eye to things that might. Avoiding adding unneeded features to 
early allow more flexibility later when working on things that do need 
fixing.