"Andrej Mitrovic" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > > Still this is one of the few proposals I like. My only caveat is the > comment: "except the file is not allowed to use the "module" > declaration.". Wouldn't it be better if we explicitly declared a > module as a package instead? In foo\bar\package.d: > package foo.bar; > > Since the "module" declaration must be on the first line (or second > line after shebang), you could special-case DMD to allow the package > keyword to be used here. I know D likes to abuse a keyword for > multiple things (hello Mr. Static!), but I think we could live with > it.
Or maybe just require the module name ends with ".package"
