Jim Wrote: > Walter Bright Wrote: > > Forcing the module name to match the file name sounds good, but in practice > > it > > makes it hard to debug modules. What I like to do is to copy a suspicious > > module > > to foo.d (or whatever.d) and link it in explicitly, which will override the > > breaking one. Then, I hack away at it until I discover the problem, then > > fix the > > original. > > > This would admittedly impose some constraints, but I think it would > ultimately be worth it. It makes everything much clearer and creates a bunch > of opportunities for further development.
I don't see such benefit. First off, I don't see file/module names not matching very often. Tools can be developed to assume such structure exists which means more incentive to keep such structure, I believe rdmd already makes this assumption. It also wouldn't be hard to make a program that takes a list of files, names and places them into the proper structure. > I'd create a branch (in git or mercury) for that task, it's quick and dirt > cheap, very easy to switch to and from, and you get the diff for free. Right, using such tools is great. But what if you are like me and don't have a dev environment set up for Phobos, but I want to fix some module? Do I have to setup such an environment or through the file in a folder std/ just do some work on it? I don't really know how annoying I would find such a change, but I don't think I would ever see at as a feature.
