On Tuesday, 30 July 2013 at 19:21:06 UTC, JS wrote:
> I don't think so.

No one will take that from you :)

> If you write nice code but it is useless then there is no point in anyone reading it.

Then don't write useless code. Hint: writing any piece of code longer than N involves reading it even you work alone simply because of limitations of human memory.

> If one allows proper mixin behavior and D ever gets a good ide, then it will be possible to have an intellisense like feature

Please no. Relying on IDE features is a major sign "bad language design".

> If you block every aspect to make using such features easier then few will use them and there usage won't get easier.

Perfect. That is the goal. It is not newbie feature, it is complex feature, it should not be easy to slip into unnoticed.

> I think your problem is that you...

I don't have a problem. You, however, have a problem convincing people who's opinion does matter. Hint: I am not part of that group. I am simply trying to explain in details one possible point of view why this proposal is bad. Can happily retire if you don't need it.

> The fact is, that string mixins are already hard to read... so just by removing the mixin statement won't change that. The point you are trying to make is flawed.

That is irrelevant to actual design of string mixins. There are only very few tools to inject symbols into enclosing scope. Keeping them as explicit is possible is important for code hygiene.

> Anyways, it would be nice to actually debate the real merits of such a feature rather than feelings about it.

Exactly. Merit: saves few symbols. Flaw: someone needs to spend time to implement it. That alone is enough to say "No".