Nested public imports - bug or feature?

[Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d]

On 08/14/2015 05:55 PM, Dejan Lekic wrote:
> On Thursday, 13 August 2015 at 16:22:04 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
>> On Thursday, 13 August 2015 at 16:19:29 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>>> You can get that behavior with static imports in D, but having to use
>>> the whole import path while referencing symbols gets ugly fast.
>>
>> Check example again, you are only required to use the plain module
>> name, not fully qualified one. With D syntax:
>>
>> import std.stdio;
>>
>> writeln(); // not good
>> stdio.writeln(); // good
>> std.stdio.writeln(); // also good, but not required
>
> Thank God, D does it the "not good" way. But I guess that is subjective
> thing. Some people like it one way, others like it the other way.
> ...

Rust supports both. D supports both. I still fail to see how one 
language can be seen to handle it in a "good" way and the other in a 
"not good" way, beyond trivial syntactic considerations and compiler bugs.

Is it a language-cultural issue?

> I humbly belive D's way is good. Compiler should issue a warning when
> conflicts arrive.

But only then, please. :o)