On 5/3/21 11:04 AM, jmh530 wrote:
On Sunday, 2 May 2021 at 18:36:25 UTC, Basile B. wrote:
[snip]
BTW during the PR review the problem you encounter [was
anticipated](https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/12178#issuecomment-773886263)
si I guess you're stuck with [the author
answer](https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/12178#issuecomment-773902749),
i.e "this worked because of a special case".
[snip]
"this worked because of a special case" or "I'm sure they won't mind a
bit of change" are not exactly the most fulfilling arguments to me.
Don't we have transition switches for a reason?
The other solution is to keep the special case and then add additional
logic to handle when the thing being looked up is not public (or whatever).
Yeah, I think the situation with top-level modules and package names is
kind of an elephant in the room. If you have any packages which have
top-level modules, you have lots of weird corner cases (even before this
change) that make things difficult.
IMO, we should address this at a design level. What that means, I'm not
sure. At any point alias is going to throw a monkey wrench into anything
we could come up with. But it should be at least possible to keep
existing code compiling.
-Steve
