[Issue 19665] Package modules are meaningless
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19665 --- Comment #5 from Vladimir Panteleev --- (In reply to Adam D. Ruppe from comment #4) > It does bug me that it is inconsistent with other modules though: in no > other case does the filename matter (aside from automatic lookups). You are > allowed to have blargh.d with module whatever.you.want;. So why must this > one special case require the package.d filename? Personally, I always considered that mismatching module and file names was just the implementation being overly permissive. It only works with certain build systems and breaks a number of other assumptions for various tooling, so I'm happy to write that off in the "it works but don't do that" category. --
[Issue 19665] Package modules are meaningless
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19665 Adam D. Ruppe changed: What|Removed |Added CC||destructiona...@gmail.com --- Comment #4 from Adam D. Ruppe --- It does bug me that it is inconsistent with other modules though: in no other case does the filename matter (aside from automatic lookups). You are allowed to have blargh.d with module whatever.you.want;. So why must this one special case require the package.d filename? but meh, it isn't a bug as it is working as designed. --
[Issue 19665] Package modules are meaningless
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19665 Vladimir Panteleev changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC||dlang-bugzilla@thecybershad ||ow.net Resolution|--- |INVALID --- Comment #3 from Vladimir Panteleev --- Not a bug in any D code. Language changes are done via DIPs. You may want to review the discussions for the feature back when it was introduced for clarification on why this feature was designed the way it is. --
[Issue 19665] Package modules are meaningless
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19665 --- Comment #2 from Victor Porton --- Deprecating, not invalidating. > What's the advantage of > > > foo.d > foo/a.d > > Over > > foo/package.d > foo/a.d The advantage is cleaner idea that it is package foo (and also decreasing the number of path components). --
[Issue 19665] Package modules are meaningless
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19665 Seb changed: What|Removed |Added CC||greeen...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Seb --- I'm not sure I understand the advantage of deprecating a lot of code about a naming issue. What's the advantage of foo.d foo/a.d Over foo/package.d foo/a.d ? --
