Blog article on new import changes

[Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On 3/29/16 11:08 PM, xenon325 wrote:
> On Tuesday, 29 March 2016 at 15:25:27 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> I anticipate 2.071.0 is going to cause a lot of deprecation messages
>> and strange errors to occur, due to the fixes of very long-standing
>> import bugs.
>>
>> I wrote a blog post (actually my first ever) on this, let me know what
>> you think (and please, any clarifications/errors, let me know):
>>
>> http://www.schveiguy.com/blog/2016/03/import-changes-in-d-2-071/
>
> 1.
>> In addition, importing a module using static, renamed, or selective
>> imports, then the module was imported publicly, even though it was
>> supposed to be private.
>
> Not an English speaker, but this doesn't sound right (at least
> stylistically).
> Reread it several times, but I couldn't get the meaning of the sentence,
> until opened bug report.
>

Definitely some grammar issues there. New reworded sentence:

In addition, when importing a module using static, renamed, or selective 
imports, the symbols imported were incorrectly made public to importing 
modules.

Sound better?

> 2.
>> With 2.070.2 and prior versions, compiling this works just fine. With
>> 2.071.0 and above, you will get either a deprecation warning, or an
>> error.
>
>> With 2.070.2, this compiled just fine. [...] With 2.071.0 and above,
>> this will trigger a deprecation warning. In the future, the code will
>> trigger an error.
>
>> In 2.070.2, this produces no warning or error. In 2.071.0 and beyond,
>> this will produce a deprecation warning, and eventually an error.
>
> Not sure if it's worth it to repeat after each example. Feels redundant.

I think it's important to state the previous and new behavior, even 
though it's always the same. It does sound redundant, but makes it 
easier to understand.

>
> 3. I think it's OK to write just major compiler versions, no need for
> patch version: 2.070 and 2.071

Yes, I did that.

Thanks for the feedback.

-Steve