Import concerns revisited

[Dave]

Dave wrote:
 > Walter Bright wrote:
 >>
 >> D already has a lot of syntax in it. We should be very careful about 
adding more; not every convenience should have its own syntactic sugar.
 >
 > I agree, but this will be a major convenience, imho.
 >
 > The proposal here
 >
 > http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D/39967
 > http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D/39973
 >
 > seems to meet this criteria:
 >
 > a) address all of Kris' concerns (if not Kris, pipe in here).
 > b) backward compatible.
 > c) can be implemented w/o significanly changing the current compiler 
(I think) other than for the import statement additions.
 > d) is consistent with how import + alias works now.
 > e) are a significant convenience.
 > f) keep the visual continuity of import statements for maintenance 
purposes.
 > g) encourage good coding practices with regards to imports and aliasing.
 >
 > - Dave

Taking Walter's criteria from Lionello's post:

 > Each idea goes through a gauntlet of:
 > 1) is lack of this idea turning users away from D

Right now, I don't know. Based on the response of several long-time 
users and many in this newsgroup, it probably will once more complex 
projects are attempted, especially libraries.

 > 2) how much power it adds

It adds the ability to import specific symbols - a quite powerful 
addition to import I think.

 > 3) how much complexity it adds

Not a lot for the programmer. It could actually remove a large amount of 
complexity for large projects. It doesn't change how import or alias 
work now so it doesn't add any complexity if not used.

 > 4) is it consistent with the rest of D

Yes.

 > 5) how hard is it to implement

It combines the current import and alias with what you already have in 
mind for 'static import'.

 > 6) how does it rank in importance against all the other ideas

 From the response over this weekend, I'd say "NEAR THE TOP".