I've only understood that imports should go in package.d. I'm
seeing more and more packages on code.dlang.org using it for the
packages primary code. Is this alright? As far as I can tell it's
just bad form. It would be nice to have one of the maintainers
higher up the food chain comment on thi
On Wednesday, January 03, 2018 06:10:10 Soulsbane via Digitalmars-d-learn
wrote:
> I've only understood that imports should go in package.d. I'm
> seeing more and more packages on code.dlang.org using it for the
> packages primary code. Is this alright? As far as I can tell it's
> just bad form. I
On Wednesday, 3 January 2018 at 07:43:52 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
On Wednesday, January 03, 2018 06:10:10 Soulsbane via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
[...]
The entire reason that the package.d feature was added was so
that it would be possible to split a module into a package
without breaki
On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 12:43:52AM -0700, Jonathan M Davis via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 03, 2018 06:10:10 Soulsbane via Digitalmars-d-learn
> wrote:
> > I've only understood that imports should go in package.d. I'm seeing
> > more and more packages on code.dlang.org usin