Nested public imports - bug or feature?

[Dicebot via Digitalmars-d]

On Friday, 14 August 2015 at 20:12:43 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
> On 08/14/2015 08:57 PM, Dicebot wrote:
>> Ok, let's stop for a minute and make sure we are on the same 
>> thread
>> here. Because you seem to argue something I have never said or 
>> at least
>> intended to say.
>> ...
>
> OK. This is my view: The sub-thread was started with the claim 
> that the module system is "completely broken" in a particular 
> way. You gave Rust's system as an alternative, but it is 
> (basically) the same thing with slightly different syntax.

I called it broken because it makes impossible to add new symbols 
to the library without possibly breaking user code. Same scenario 
in Rust is much less likely - comparing default import semantics, 
of course. And idioms don't matter because only very few use 
them, thus I only consider default import behaviour when making 
such statement.

Still disagree?

>> Does that make sense?
>
> Not really. It is up to the programmer which of the idioms to 
> use by default, and all options exist in both languages.
>
> It's not that important, I guess.

Won't try to convince anyone about good style and stuff. All I 
need is some confirmation that presented nested import semantics 
will stay :( Will try poking Walter personally.