On Wednesday, 20 August 2014 at 17:19:58 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
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
Do we need a hierarchy of internals, is the problem this big?
ah, why we need such things as subdirectories at all? CP/M was
mybiglib.wisdom is not good?
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.