DIP10005: Dependency-Carrying Declarations is now available for community feedback

[Stefan Koch via Digitalmars-d]

On Friday, 30 December 2016 at 18:11:54 UTC, deadalnix wrote:

> I think the performance gain we are looking at here is 
> marginal, and I don't expect people to change their code to get 
> a marginal benefit, so I suggest the performance aspect of the 
> change to be simply left aside.

Yes, imports are (in most cases) not performance relevant!

> So the question now is would the added expressivity of per 
> declaration import be worth the language change. I have to 
> admit I'm not convinced either way.

Neither am I.

> Finally, while I proposed a variation of the "with import" 
> combo in the past, I'm now much more convinced that using the 
> plain import syntax, without the ';' is better. I was afraid 
> there was a syntax conflict, but it doesn't looks like there is 
> one. This will not introduce a new syntax, but allow an 
> existing one to be used in a new location. This is, IMO, much 
> more valuable.

I am still not sure what problem it is trying to solve :)