I suggesting to make writing of programs faster and convenient... When I write the program I do not want to connect all libraries of import. And consequently I should enter hands in the table of import what to not eat conveniently.... Why to not make check on existence of function in the table of import and its addition at its absence??? It was - very convenient:)

you mean something like below?

Not absolutely, the section of import should form on a course of compilation, instead of during writing the program, i.e. we use functions, and the compiler itself takes them from base, and inserts into a file of import. For example in a folder c:\fasm156\include\imports\*.inc the compiler searches for the necessary function and dynamically creates a file with the array of import....

What if I want them to be listed in the specified order? And what if I want to make import section be before code section etc. FASM isn't a compiler, it's an assembler!

So, it is exactly this way in the FASM import libraryes. FASM import macroses: "library" and "import" will include given function and library into the import section of the executable only if this function is used in the program. So, you can safely include all libraryes of interest and all files from "%fasminc%\apia" directory (they imports all functions from the given .dll) and leave the compiler to choose what to import and what not. Even more you simply can create small include file containing all includes and "library" statements and to include it in every your program. The size of the compiled application won't be affected at all by this. It always will be minimal possible. This approach only affects compilation speed, but the overhead is pretty small and it won't be smaller if Privalov built this processing inside the FASM compiler. Also, the macro approach is times more flexible. You still can, if you want, to build your import section manually.
Also, don't forget that the Windows applications are not the only applications FASM can create. What for Linux, DOS, MenuetOS, etc.?

And from what version FASM it is entered? Simply I use 1.49 can it is necessary to proceed on 1.56??? Because I did not know it: (

P.S. new version FRESH is soon planned?

Why wouldn't you upgrade your FASM. 1.49 has been out for AGES now
You should get atleast 1.52+ for these kind of cases. No wonder we disagree
on some thing when versions are SO different. Why make it harder for yourself.
If you have followed the forums there have been some major leaps inbetween
different versions. If not, then you can assume from the 1.4x 1.5x that they
are not exactly the same. What comes to fresh - there are specific topics
for that.