Nested public imports - bug or feature?

[Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d]

On 08/15/2015 06:15 PM, Dicebot wrote:
> On Friday, 14 August 2015 at 20:12:43 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
>> On 08/14/2015 08:57 PM, Dicebot wrote:
>>> Ok, let's stop for a minute and make sure we are on the same thread
>>> here. Because you seem to argue something I have never said or at least
>>> intended to say.
>>> ...
>>
>> OK. This is my view: The sub-thread was started with the claim that
>> the module system is "completely broken" in a particular way. You gave
>> Rust's system as an alternative, but it is (basically) the same thing
>> with slightly different syntax.
>
> I called it broken because it makes impossible to add new symbols to the
> library without possibly breaking user code. Same scenario in Rust is
> much less likely - comparing default import semantics, of course. And
> idioms don't matter because only very few use them, thus I only consider
> default import behaviour when making such statement.
>
> Still disagree?
> ...

Sure, but I think the disagreement is on what it /means/ for a module 
system to be broken, hence it is not actually important. Thanks!

>>> Does that make sense?
>>
>> Not really. It is up to the programmer which of the idioms to use by
>> default, and all options exist in both languages.
>>
>> It's not that important, I guess.
>
> Won't try to convince anyone about good style and stuff. All I need is
> some confirmation that presented nested import semantics will stay :(
> Will try poking Walter personally.

Ok. Still "yes" is the only answer that makes any sense, and breaking 
legitimate D code is not among Walter's priorities. :-)