Import concerns revisited

[Georg Wrede]

Derek Parnell wrote:
> *Please* do not overload the "static" keyword with yet another 
> definition.  I have no idea what "static inport" means as a natural 
> phrase. It does not  imply or suggest anything to me. Is it an import 
> that is down at compile  time (of course it is 'cos that's when import 
> statements are used), or is  it something that doesn't change size 
> during the run-time, or is it  something that retains its place in RAM 
> during the life of the execution?  Oh no, that's right - in this context 
> it means that you have to FQN  references. Doh! Bloody obvious isn't it?

I'm afraid I agree.

When I first saw "static import", the above quote was literally what I 
went through.

The word "static" is not exactly transparent here. (Not that I could 
come up with a good alternative off hand.)