import concerns (was Re: Historical language survey)

[Dave]

Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
> Walter Bright wrote:
> 
>> John Reimer wrote:
>>> 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).
>> What I don't get is what is "unprofessional" or hackish about alias? Is
>> it (as I posted to Kris) that it looks too much like #define?
> 
> I personally don't like it myself, first of all it is not a natural word for
> me (I don't have English as my mother tongue, might very well be the
> reason), but my understanding of the word make it very unlikely to me that
> it actually _do_ something, it should just give something a different name.
> Using it for anything else (pulling something from one namespace to
> another, for instance when subclassing), or for making namespaces, is to me
> the most unintuitive thing I've ever come across in a programming language
> (I don't count COBOL here ...). I actually hate it :)
> 

Great point!! I *knew* there was something that just didn't feel right 
about explicitly using 'alias' for the purpose discussed here and that's it!