Andrei: > I'm not very familiar with Python's module system. Is it very similar to > D's?
If you take a look at the Python module system, you copy the first half of it, its more evident characteristics, ignoring its care for details and corner cases, and you remove its dynamic characteristics, you produce a kind of D module system :-) Python doesn't have the anti-hijacking feature, and it's more dynamic. Its package system is more refined than the primitive D package system (and it seems it's not easy to design right, because even the last versions of Python have modified a the its semantics of packages). In Python when you do "import foo" you import only the name "foo". This is probably one of the first things I've asked in D, and I am for it still, but most D programmers have not appreciated this idea, so I have stopped asking for it since lot of time. (S)ML language has a WAY more complex module system, but despite its advantages, I think D/Python module system is good enough and it's easy to learn to use. In the end on the surface if you know the Python module system it's easy to learn to use the D one, and the opposite too is true. I think the D package system needs to be improved, using more brain. This is another example of why D design development can't be stopped yet. Bye, bearophile
