On Wednesday, February 22, 2012 23:33:57 Bernard Helyer wrote: > On Wednesday, 22 February 2012 at 22:05:51 UTC, Jonathan M Davis > > wrote: > > Then what happens when you have > > > > dmc -c foo/a.d foo_a.d > > Good point. > > > Regardless, I really wouldn't like the idea of screwing with > > the object file > > names to try and avoid collisions. > > Well, the thing is in this case everything is being passed to the > compiler. It knows the names of everything. But yeah, I think > complaining is fine _if_ dmd allows individual modules to be > named explicitly. Otherwise, all in one is good. But really, even > prefixing it would be better than what we have now. What about > 'module.foo_a.o' if foo_a isn't in a package?
I really think that it should either put it in a single object file or complain and disallow it. Really, the correct way to build such modules is to put each object file in a directory hierarchy which matches the modules. Anything else is a mess. But that's the job a build tool, not the compiler. So, it should do what's reasonable, which doesn't include renaming files to avoid module collisions IMHO. - Jonathan M Davis
