import concerns (was Re: Historical language survey)

[Jarrett Billingsley]

"Walter Bright" <newshound at digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
news:e8pl56$26u9$1 at digitaldaemon.com...

> Turns out, "scope" was a problem. It broke a lot of my code - a lot more 
> than I'd anticipated.

Heh, of course, the "scope" statement came out just as I was beginning to 
write the MiniD compiler :S  Had "scope" in there quite a few times!

Okay, no one seems to like "static import."  How about "protected import"?

It fits right in with the current syntax:

public import foo; // the default
private import foo;
protected import foo; // FQN import

And it says "protected," as in "the names are protected from conflict by 
their namespace."

The only problem I'd see with this would be doing a "private protected 
import" :S