import concerns (was Re: Historical language survey)

[kris]

Walter Bright wrote:
> Walter Bright wrote:
> 
>>>> What can also be done is extend the import declaration to allow the 
>>>> .'s to continue so that specific symbols can be imported.
>>>
>>>
>>> Now that would be great. I believe selective-importing (as an option) 
>>> would be a boon in a number of ways ~ and would resolve this issue 
>>> quite elegantly.
>>
>>
>> I like this one better, too.
> 
> 
> There's another way - have a different kind of import declaration, say, 
> precede it with static:
> 
>     static import foo;
> 
> which will make the symbols in foo available, but only if they are 
> explicitly qualified. Then one could access bar in foo by either:
> 
>     foo.bar();
> 
> or:
> 
>     alias foo.bar bar;
>     bar();
> 
> but not:
> 
>     bar();    // error, undefined symbol
> 
> The advantage of this is it is a bit more flexible and more consistent 
> with the way the rest of D lookups work.


That would also resolve the issue, so, yes please;