Summary of progress

[Johannes Waldmann]

> An alternative might be to adopt an extension such that
> 
> 	import Haskell.
>
> would add D/Haskell/ to the search path for each D in the current search

This looks like a hack? Indicating that we believe nested module names
are a good thing, but also believe that they are cumbersome to use?

Do we need two types of `imports':
`import Foo.Bar.M' imports a module, while
`import Foo.Bar.*' does not actually import a module,
but rather adds an element to the search path.
So that `import Foo.Bar.*; import M' would do the same as `import Foo.Bar.M'

Or do you actually mean `import *.Haskell.*' ?
This would make `Foo.Haskell.M' visible as `Foo.M' ? Or as `M' ?

Best regards,
-- 
-- Johannes Waldmann ---- http://www.informatik.uni-leipzig.de/~joe/ --
-- joe@informatik.uni-leipzig.de -- phone/fax (+49) 341 9732 204/252 --