Author here. I originally thought the issue was that an 'imported' scope imports are not considered anymore. As Walter explained in this issue and in https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15966 this behaviour changed to prevent hijacking and is intended. So the only issue left with 15925 was that `-transition=checkimport` did not warn about it, which Martin fixed. But since the issue was not renamed / repurposed, it led to a confusing changelog.
Raised a P.R. : https://github.com/dlang/dlang.org/pull/1404 and renamed the issue, thanks for reporting. 2016-06-30 9:34 GMT+02:00 qznc via Digitalmars-d < digitalmars-d@puremagic.com>: > On Thursday, 30 June 2016 at 05:42:36 UTC, captaindet wrote: > >> the changelog to 2.071.1 lists 15925 as a fixed regression, and >> https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15925 >> lists it as "RESOLVED FIXED" >> >> however, the issue as originally submitted still exists in 2.071.1. >> so what is going on? >> >> for me as a non-core dev it is difficult to get the gist of the >> discussion on the issue tracker... BUT if it was decided that 15925 is >> INVALID or WONTFIX it must not be marked as RESOLVED FIXED and be featured >> as a fixed regression. >> >> i thought i understood the enforced import rules. but if 15925 is indeed >> invalid, it looks like there had been also changes to the way mixin >> statements (and maybe even mixin expressions?) work. is this explained >> anywhere? >> > > There is a commit [0] with a slightly different test case, where the mixin > is in the same module. A second testcase which directly mirrors the issue > was reverted [1]. This suggests it is INVALID. > > I agree that the resolution of the issue is not sufficiently explained. > > [0] > https://github.com/dlang/dmd/commit/ba178e607c33e121142ec15c5064d953fd87a191 > [1] > https://github.com/dlang/dmd/commit/f0f38381ed27fd8a4d2e36d13623698970cff7bd >