On Thu, 05 Apr 2012 14:24:10 -0400, Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisp...@gmx.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, April 05, 2012 09:49:59 Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Thu, 05 Apr 2012 09:23:25 -0400, Timon Gehr <timon.g...@gmx.ch> I
suppose the only thing we don't get is being able to have a module and a
package with the same FQN. I don't see that being a major issue.
What doesn't work is being able to turn a module into a package with the
same
name. Right now, we could create a std.alg package with sub-modules
containing
all of std.algorithm's functionality and change std.algorithm to pubicly
import them all, but you can't turn std.algorithm itself into a package
without breaking code.
But so what? nobody has any code like:
import std.algorithm.sort;
So who cares where that module goes? I agree it would be ideal to put it
there, but I don't think it's strictly necessary. And there is no need
for the shortcut for fully qualified names.
So, the whole point of this proposal - to seemlessly allow the
transition of a
module to a package in place - _does_ require a language/compiler change.
I don't see how. Just move the code into another module and publicly
import that module from std/algorithm.d. Problem pretty much solved.
BTW, importing a directory was already proposed in DIP15.
http://prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?LanguageDevel/DIPs/DIP15
-Steve
