import concerns (was Re: Historical language survey)

[John Reimer]

In article <e8pk3b$26bo$1 at digitaldaemon.com>, Walter Bright says...
>
>Kris wrote:
>> Er, that really doesn't work at all. Please ignore what I said a few minutes ago
>> regarding this option (I really should get some sleep instead). 
>> 
>> The problem here is that, for the proposed static imports, everything must be
>> fully-qualified with the /original import name/, and that's just plain awful for
>> long import names. The "import as" allows one to give it a nice short name
>> instead.
>
>Alias also works fine for making substitutes for long, awkward names:
>
>import x.y.mod;
>alias x.y.mod t;
>
>x.y.mod.foo();	// works
>t.foo();	// also works
>
>
>> And, I still think the selective-import is the superior solution anyway.
>
>Semantically, it isn't any different. It would even be implemented 
>internally using the 'alias' machinery.


Walter,

The use of "alias" still looks like a hack.  We know you've always been firm in
your belief that "alias" is the way to do it.  I doubt that all these people
would be discussing options here if they were satisfied with that solution
(which has been around for a looong time).

We know it can be done with alias. Kris knows. We don't think it's good enough.
That's why this whole topic is being wrangled.  

So if you choose to make the internal machinery do it with alias, fine!  We just
want something that's better, nicer, more professional looking! :) (please not
"static import," though).

While I do agree that D would suffer if you followed the communities whim for
every little feature suggested, yet I think you are far too independent minded
most of the time.  The quote in your recent interview at Bitwise -- "D is going
wherever the D community wants it to go" -- is really a farce.  D is going where
/you/ want it to go, Walter. 

And there's nothing wrong with admitting that.  I just think a honesty is
important here.  This is your language.  You've made that very plain over the
years, and most of us who have stuck around have accepted that. You strongly
disfavour committees and bureaucracy, which is completely understandable; but,
your over-protectiveness and fear of them may be doing the same sort of damage
on the opposite end of the spectrum.

Don't take this wrong:  I'm very thankful about all you've done with D; I just
get a little frustrated at how hard you are to convince of anything, a trait
that may do well for you in some ways but probably hurts you so much more in
other ways.

-JJR