An appeal

[Chris Miller]

On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 15:58:56 -0400, kris <foo at bar.com> wrote:

> Walter Bright wrote:
>> kris wrote:
>>
>>> Personally, I have to wonder what compelling reason there is to  
>>> continue ploughing so much effort into helping make D a success,  
>>> behind the scenes, when it appears to have so little value in your  
>>> eyes.
>>   Language design is hardly cut and dried. There is rarely a right and  
>> a wrong answer. There are only benefits and costs, and those vary from  
>> application to application, and peoples' opinions of them vary as well.
>>  You and I have different opinions about how certain things should  
>> work. Nothing more should be read into it than that.
>
>
> Excuse me ... you and the *community* have different opinions !
>
> Do yourself, and everyone here, a big favour and stop insisting this  
> this is between you and I. By doing so, you send a clear message that  
> the opinions of everyone else clamouring (or begging) for exactly the  
> same thing is utterly worthless. That the community segment requesting  
> this small change simply don't know what they are talking about. Fools  
> that we all are.
>
> The attitude here is exactly what was alluded to in the original post;  
> you make a point of utterly ignoring (and removing) the principal  
> points, and contort what little is left. Frankly, such behaviour should  
> not be tolerated within this community.
>
> To make it perfectly clear, yet again, we're *all* asking for the  
> equivalent of a combined import and alias:
>
> import x.y.z as n;
>
> where n becomes a required prefix. We're not interested in using alias  
> as a secondary instruction, for all the myriad reasons noted that you  
> have yet to even acknowledge exist. And the "static import", as you've  
> surely seen by the many negative responses, simply does not cut the  
> mustard with the D community.
>

I'm not against devising new syntax for this, just thought I'd explore  
current means first.

I thought it would be fine just importing inside a struct like so:  struct  
n { import x.y.z; }  to achieve the same thing, but it turns out, this  
style importing is frowned upon and can cause major issues. Perhaps it's a  
bug that should be resolved? or something that should be forbidden?

But with a new syntax, I suspect it'd be best to not even use "as" or  
another word or operator and just use  import x.y.z n;  just like a  
regular declaration or mixin identifier doesn't need it:  int as n;  mixin  
foo as bar;