Andrei Alexandrescu, el 9 de junio a las 14:59 me escribiste: > On 06/09/2010 02:48 PM, Walter Bright wrote: > >Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: > >>On 06/09/2010 07:57 AM, Michel Fortin wrote: > >>>On 2010-06-08 17:41:22 -0400, "Simen kjaeraas" <simen.kja...@gmail.com> > >>>said: > >>> > >>>>Now, my favorite way of dealing with this: Where would I look for a > >>>>binary heap if I wanted one? I would think of it as a container, and > >>>>thus > >>>>check std.container. If it was not there, I would use the search > >>>>function > >>>>to find it. I can invent reasons, but it's mostly grounded in learned > >>>>names and categories. > >>> > >>>And if you were accustomed to the STL, you'd just look for a binary heap > >>>header to include instead of trying to philosophize about which category > >>>of things it fits best. That's why I suggested "std.binaryheap" earlier. > >>>(Could be "std.binheap" if you want it short.) > >> > >>I don't think this will scale. There are quite a few data structures > >>out there, I'm afraid we'll have too many modules too soon. > > > >One solution is to have std.container consist of the following: > > > >public import std.containers.binaryheap; > >public import std.containers.redblacktree; > > I wanted to do that but with the singular: > > public import std.container.binaryheap; > > So if someone imports std.container then they get them all, if > someone imports std.container.something then they only get > something. > > Having a module and a package with the same name does not currently > work, and I don't think there's a good rationale for that > limitation.
That's why the convetion .all is used. If that worked I guess .all wasn't necessary in the first place. -- Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can try the best you can If you try the best you can The best you can is good enough