Import concerns revisited

[Sean Kelly]

kris wrote:
> Walter Bright wrote:
>> Dave wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not sure what exactly Kris said, but imports are ubiquitous.
>>
>>  > Not used as much as loops of course, but they are used in every 
>> program.
>>
>> Yes, they are ubiquitous. But the renaming of imported symbols? I'm 
>> not convinced that is at all ubiquitous, or that it is very desirable 
>> in any but unusual cases.
> 
> ??
> 
> I suspect you are very confused about what is actually being asked for. 
> Is that the case? Perhaps you'd like to note what it is that you think 
> is being proposed?

I'm beginning to feel like the focus is slipping a bit as well. 
However, the current issue of contention seems to be whether or not 
aliasing package/module names to something a bit more concise will be a 
common practice.  I assert that it will be, particularly if D gets 
something akin to "static import" where names must be fully-qualified. 
But the only crystal ball I can offer are the few nontrivial libraries 
that have been written for D (such as Mango) combined with experience 
and a general sense of how I expect to do things in the future.

>> The discussion is now about whether two statements should be combined 
>> into one or not. The power is the same.
> 
> Again, please refer to Sean's post from yesterday.

As this thread has become quite extensive, I believe this is the post 
Kris is referring to:

http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D/39893


Sean