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.
So, my basic statements:
1. I don't like default D import semantics but I am not proposing
to change it
2. I like Rust default import semantics (requiring module name)
more than default D one. It is possible to emulate it by turning
every single import into aliased import.
3. Idiom proposed in the first post is based on similar reasoning
as Rust behavior but is different in functionality (one I find
even more practical personally).
4. Both feel more practical to me than default D behavior and
both require custom idioms/conventions in D
Does that make sense?
