An appeal

[kris]

Walter Bright wrote:
> kris 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.
>>>
>>> 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.
> 
> 
> What I am referring to is your inference of nefarious motives when I 
> disagree with you.


This whole thing has become far more complex than it need be. The 
community is asking for what seems to be a minor syntactic change, to 
provide notable positive value. You feel such changes are entirely 
unecessary, that the value is simply not there, and place little no 
value in the highly-visible community desire, experience, and knowledge.

At the same time, you claim "D goes where the community wants it to". 
Yet, what further evidence is needed to show that the commmunity desires 
an "import x.y.z as n;" or "import x.y.z : n;" or import "import x.y.z n"?

1) Perfectly adequate reasons have been offered forth by various parties.
2) The community is united in asking for "something better". This is a 
true rarity in and of itself.
3) It does not affect existing code at all.
4) It appears to be reasonably straightforward to implement (if static 
import is not difficult, then the extension to the desired approach 
should not be notably more so)
5) it fixes the ancient namespace-collision problem, and is effortless 
enough to /encourage/ the use of safer imports. What could be better?

Just what more is needed, exactly? What more does it take for an 
unobtrusive change to be effected? Exactly what does the 'motto' mean, 
if all the above is still not sufficient to garner such a non-impact 
change?




> What I am referring to is your inference of nefarious motives when I 
> disagree with you.

Au contraire; learned friend.

If there are indeed nefarious motivation, it is evidenced within your 
replies to various posts. I contend that posts by others are exhibiting 
a similar level of frustration for similar reason, and, whatever you 
refer to is not reserved for me alone. Thus, it cannot be simply when 
you and I disagree.