https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=21500
--- Comment #6 from RazvanN <razvan.nitu1...@gmail.com> --- (In reply to Max Samukha from comment #5) > (In reply to RazvanN from comment #4) > > (In reply to Max Samukha from comment #3) > > > How are imported symbols different than other symbols introduced by a > > > mixin? > > > > In the case of imported symbols, you are right, there isn't any difference, > > however, the problematic case is when you have module imports (`import > > std.stdio`) inside a mixin. In that case, you end up importing a lot of > > symbols that you have no idea about. The user can look through the code (or > > the documentation) of a mixin template and at least have a general > > understanding of the symbols that he is mixing in, whereas, in the case of > > imports there is no way you can know what symbols end up hijacking your > > other symbols (except if you audit all the imported modules). > > Sorry for the slow reply. No worries. > > Yes, my question was not so much about this particular case as about why > directly imported symbols are considered eligible for anti-hijacking > measures, while symbols introduced indirectly (via an imported base > class/interface, mixin, or "alias this") are not. I think it would be much easier if you provided an example. Currently, I cannot find any scenarios regarding base classes, mixins or alias this that do not abide by the present rule. --
