Well, I was really hoping for this to go in. The main objection seems to be:
Furthermore, module names are not passed through subsequent use or host
association, which means it would only work in a scope that directly uses
the module. That would make the feature useless. Passing module names
through use or host association, as class one identifiers (which they are),
cannot be changed without introducing an incompatibility.
Does anybody understand what exactly the issue is here? Yes, one “passes” implicitly the module name into nested scopes, just like in Python. What exactly is the incompatibility? If you declare a local variable of the same name as the module, it will shadow it.
We can prototype it.