Import concerns revisited

[kris]

Dave wrote:
> Dave wrote:
>> kris wrote:
>>> Don't wish to belabour the point, but why the private attribute when 
>>> it's not really required?
>>>
>>
>> I missed that... You're right, no need for 'private'.
>>
> 
> Hmm, that is if the new syntax proposals import exclusively into the 
> current module, which I had thought I'd read somewhere earlier when I 
> replied. Is that the case?
> 
> Otherwise 'private import' would be needed for the same reasons it is 
> used now.

I apologize ... thought you were using the 'private' keyword as a 
replacement for Walter's "static import" thingy ... Sorry

So, yes ~ private/package/public/whatever should operate exactly as it 
does today. Well, I mean "operate as it is supposed to work" today ;)