On Wednesday, July 04, 2018 11:13:07 Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d wrote: > I think if we went the different route we would have to provide a > mechanism to declare inside the module "this is a package". Maybe > "package module"?
I would point out that the pretty much the only reason that we were able to convince Walter to have package.d in the language was because of how straightforward it is and how it changed nothing about import semantics and required very little to add it. Any other approaches would likely need to provide a significant benefit over what we have now in order to be acceptable. And suggestions like this just seem to be shuffling things around without really changing or improving what you can do. - Jonathan M Davis
