On 11/10/14 4:33 PM, Dicebot wrote:
On Monday, 10 November 2014 at 21:25:32 UTC, Jonathan Marler wrote:
I was perusing a PR for phobos where std/range.d was split into
submodules and std/range.d was moved to std/range/package.d
I was wondering why a package module had to be called "package.d"
instead of just being the package name. For example, instead of
moving std/range.d to std/range/package.d, why doesn't modifying
std/range.d to contain the public imports of the submodules work just
as well?
My first thought was that maybe it let's the compiler know that all
"package" modifiers are visible to all the modules in the same
package, and the only way the compiler knows about what modules are in
a package are if they are imported in the package.d file...is this one
of the reasons? Also are there other reasons? Thanks in advance.
You can't have both module and package of the same name AFAIR. Thus
std/range.d + std/range/something.d simply won't work
I don't think this is it, although that was the rule, we could easily
have allowed it.
I think the reasons package.d were chosen are:
1. Logically, you want all to be within the same "package", and
std/range.d is in a different package from std/range/x.d
2. package is a keyword, and cannot be a module name
Incidentally, allowing this idiom gives new life to the "package" keyword :)
-Steve
