On Wednesday, 20 August 2014 at 17:19:58 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 8/20/14, 7:49 AM, ketmar via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2014 14:33:52 +0000
Kagamin via Digitalmars-d-announce
<digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com> wrote:

Do we need a hierarchy of internals, is the problem this big? Why
mybiglib.wisdom is not good?
ah, why we need such things as subdirectories at all? CP/M was fine
without concept of subdirectories!

No need to demean the question. It is valid. -- Andrei

Originally flat Phobos hierarchy was considered "good enough". Now we can see that such approach doesn't scale well - features are often missed because of non-intuitive module placement, compile times suffer because of many cross-module dependencies (flat hierarchy encourages big modules).

Is there any reason to think that same logic applied to sub-packages will scale any better as Phobos size grows? I doubt so. In fact I feel it is already beyond the size where it is convenient and only reason why even smaller deeply nested modules are not an option is exactly because it is too hard to keep both existing protection attribute relation and provide easy to navigate hierarchy at the same time.

The fact that some of people who have actually tried to use package.d support this language change is pretty good anecdotal evidence that there is a problem to be solved.

Reply via email to