Blog article on new import changes

[xenon325 via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Wednesday, 30 March 2016 at 12:58:00 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer 
wrote:
> Sound better?

Yeah, thanks.

>> 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.

That's reasonable. You could kinda "compress" this, however - 
full description on first occurrence and a brief one later on. 
This is a common practice AFAICT:

> With 2.070 and prior versions, compiling this works just fine. 
> With 2.071 and above, you will get either a deprecation 
> warning, or an error.

--> "With 2.070 and prior versions, compiling this works just 
fine. In 2.071 it's deprecated (meaning you will get a warning 
now and compilation error with some later version of the 
compiler)"

> With 2.070, this compiled just fine. However, printf is 
> supposed to be a private symbol of module ex2_a. With 2.071 and 
> above, this will trigger a deprecation warning. In the future, 
> the code will trigger an error.

--> "Fine with 2.070, deprecated in 2.071 because printf is 
supposed to be a private symbol of module ex2_a"

> In 2.070, this produces no warning or error. In 2.071 and 
> beyond, this will produce a deprecation warning, and eventually 
> an error.

--> "Fine with 2.070, deprecated in 2.071"


Anyway, not a big deal. Sorry if I've gone too far with 
nitpicking :) Thanks for the article!

-Alexander