"Thias" <v...@invalid.com> wrote in message news:ih52a8$2bba$1...@digitalmars.com... > On 18/01/11 20:26, Walter Bright wrote: >> Jim wrote: >>> Adam Ruppe Wrote: >>>> Maybe. 9/10 times they match anyway, but I'd be annoyed if the package >>>> names had to match the containing folder. >>> >>> This is enforced in some languages, and I like it. It'd be confusing >>> if they >>> didn't match when I would go to look for something. >>> >>> I think it would be a good idea for D to standardise this. Not only so >>> that >>> the compiler can traverse and compile but for all dev tools (static >>> analysers, package managers, etc). Standardisation makes it easier to >>> create >>> toolchains, which I believe are essential for the growth of any >>> language use. >> >> 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. > > Couldnt you do exactly the same thing by just copying the file? > > cp suspicious.d suspicious.orig > edit suspicious.d
That's what I do. Works fine. (Although I keep the .d extension, and do like "suspicious orig.d")