Arbitrary abbreviations in phobos considered ridiculous

[David Nadlinger]

On Friday, 9 March 2012 at 23:39:25 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer 
wrote:
> I want to stress again the difference between C++'s namespaces, 
> and D's module import mechanism.  In C++, you *deliberately* 
> pull a namespace into your scope (and usually only in the 
> implementation file, which doesn't affect any other 
> implementation files), whereas in D, a standard "import 
> std.datetime" *automatically* pulls its namespace into your 
> scope, and any public imports it has made.

To be honest, I don't quite see the big difference here. Just as 
you can only #include a »namespaced« file without using a using 
directive, you can »static import« a module in D. You seem to 
be arguing that we shouldn't encourage use of these features (cf. 
the std.log discussion), but I can't quite follow you there.

Why would _not_ using static and selective imports be desirable? 
Don't we generally discourage people from write »using namespace 
std« in C++ or »import *« in Python as well? (I'm aware that 
the D module system is different, but the general idea is the 
same)

David