Okay, thanks for explaining the reasoning. I think I'll conform to the standard way of doing things.
On 2014-04-17, at 18:56, Niko Matsakis <n...@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 05:39:15PM +0300, Tommi wrote: >> ...but why not map such modules to files and folders as the following: >> >> foo.rs >> foo/lut.rs >> bar.rs >> bar/lut.rs >> >> ...and have each module informatively named. > > This used to be our system and we found it very confusing in practice. > Basically the code that was logically related to subsystem `foo` was > divided between two directories, and that caused mental discord. I > can't exactly explain *why*, but it certainly did, and hence we were > unhappy enough to switch over to the current system. > > Note that you can use the `#[path=...]` attribute to override the > defaults if you choose. > > > Niko > > [1] If you are using emacs, I strongly suggest enabling the uniquify > settings <http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/uniquify>. Otherwise you get > useless buffer names like `mod.rs<2>` rather than `foo/mod.rs` and so > on. I would hope that vim and SublimeText2 and whatever new-fangled > editors people are using these days have similar options. _______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list Rust-dev@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
