On Thu, 05 Apr 2012 14:33:22 -0400, Jonathan M Davis <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Thursday, April 05, 2012 11:30:26 Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
A couple issues that still need consideration:
1. If std.algorithm the module becomes std.algorithm the package, what
happens with ddoc? We probably *do* need a compiler solution to this.
That's assuming that you insist on keeping all of the documentation in
one
file. That arguably defeats the purpose of splitting up the modules. If
there
isn't enough in the module to split the documentation, then why do you
need to
split the module?
I thought the whole point was code maintenance? Not documentation
splitting... I would have expected people to continue to treat
std.algorithm like it was one module, even though it imports several
sub-modules for its implementation.
What _would_ be valuable and the package.d could provide is an overview
of the
package. The ddoc comment for the package.d module can become the
documentation for the package as a whole.
2. deadalnix pointed out that if we come up with a scheme where the
package module and its submodules are in the same directory, the package
accessibility qualifier can be used (hey look, a use for the package
keyword!).
Yes. std.datetime will need that once it's split. Without that, much of
it
can't be split and/or code would have to be needlessly duplicated.
Hm.. I just thought of something, as long as the main "package" module
imports everything from the same directory, and doesn't define anything,
this isn't an issue.
-Steve
