On Friday, 4 November 2022 at 16:21:17 UTC, z wrote:
On Friday, 4 November 2022 at 10:57:12 UTC, Hipreme wrote:
...
What do we use instead?
I won't lie about the fact package.d forced me to workaround
elusive "bugs" in my usage(1) but what is the alternative if we
don't want to work around it?
(1)(ime : had cases of package.d requiring compiler specific
pragmas for LDC, and dub can't find the package's `source`
files at all if it's a multi file subpackage intended to be
imported only, i never got it working with `package.d`, only a
single source file setup `*packagename*.d` would work...)
You can use any name instead. The only difference between an
ordinary source file and a package.d is the module name. For
instance, if you're inside the filesystem directory, you can
change the name to literally anything and import instead. To make
my engine's names unique I have been using a convention for the
package.d names as an abbreviation of the directory name plus
`definitions` or something like that.
