On Sunday, 24 August 2014 at 02:22:41 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
Well difference is that "internal" substring in the fully
qualified name that is much more likely to tell user he is
better to not touch it. However, original Kagamin proposal of
embedding it into module names themselves does address that if
you are ok with resulting uglyness.
Both ways it's a convention, and I don't see, why such convention
should exist in the first place, member protection has nothing to
do with module name, which reflects module's functionality.
On Sunday, 24 August 2014 at 02:34:01 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
It can be a philosophical matter, but in my experience
grouping by functionality is genuine, and access is an
afterthought, so grouping by access doesn't work in the long
term, as code naturally (spontaneously) groups by
That does contradict your statement that any stuff used in
parent packages must go to up the hierarchy which is exactly
grouping by access :)
Access there means protection, usage reflects functionality.
I can probably give a more practical example I have just
recently encountered when re-designing one of our internal
library packages. It was a "serialization" package and
sub-packages defined different (de)serialization models, some
of those defining special wrapper types for resulting data that
enforce certain semantics specific to that serialization model
via the type system. It is not surprising that most internal
details of such wrappers were kept package protected as
exposing those to user could have easily violated all
assumptions (but was needed to implement (de)serialization
It has become more complicated when "meta-serializers" have
been added to parent package - templated stuff that took any of
sub-package implementations and added some functionality (like
versioning support) on top. Being generic thing it reside in
higher level "serialization" package but to be implemented
efficiently it needs access to those internal wrapper fields.
Moving wrapper modules to parent package is not an option here
because those are closely related to specific serialization
model. Exposing stuff as public is not an option because anyone
not deeply familiar with package implementation can easily
break all type system guarantees that way. Moving
"meta-serializers" to sub-packages is quite a code duplication.
Right now I keep that stuff public and say in docs "please
don't use this" which is hardly a good solution.
1. Making wrapper protected will preclude writing new serializer.
2. Using wrapper methods can be meaningless without serializer.
3. Serializer may just not expose wrapper, then user will have no
way to access it.
4. .net has quite a lot of things like
and nothing explodes even though .net programmers are believed to
be really stupid and evil. It's a virtue of Stackoverflow Driven
On Sunday, 24 August 2014 at 02:39:40 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
On Saturday, 23 August 2014 at 09:00:30 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
What is difficult to find? With flat structure you have all
files right before your eyes. If you need std.datetime.systime
module, you open std/datetime/systime.d file - that's the
reason of needlessly restricting code structure with modules
as if one size fits all.
It is the same reasoning as with deep filesystem hierarchies
and, well, any data hierarchies - once the element (module /
file) count becomes bigger than ~dozen you only really notice
things you know to look for. Contrary to that deeply nested
categorized hierarchies are easy to casually to search through
if you don't know exact module name - just iteratively pick
whatever package fits the theme until you find what you want.
I'm afraid, hierarchies make things harder to find. If you don't
know what is where, flat organization will present you with
everything readily available right before your eyes. With deep
hierarchy you're left with abstract or poorly chosen categories
at every hierarchy level, so effectively you have to walk the
entire hierarchy, which is much more tedious than scroll a flat
list of modules viewing ten modules per scroll. Badly named list
of modules (like what we have now in phobos) scales well up to
100, well-named list is much more manageable: if you need xml,
you already know it's near the end of the list - it's easy to
find even among 1000 files - you don't ever need to scroll entire
list. If it's not there, where do you go? There's no obvious
answer. So even shallow hierarchy is more troublesome than a flat
list of 1000 modules. I don't believe hierarchy will magically
solve navigation problems just because it has folders.
I remember coding a bit in C#/.NET platform ages ago - it was
totally possible to find relevant modules without even looking
in docs, just using auto-complete through suggested package
names for import. It was really positive experience for a
newbie I was. At the same time a lot of people have no idea how
many cool things Phobos actually has.
And System.Xml is not System.Text.Xml, System.Net is not
System.IO.Net - where is deep hierarchy? If you want System.Xml,
you type `s.x` and it doesn't matter, how many namespaces are
there, you're presented with System.Xml. If it's not there, where
to find it, in System.Text, System.Formats, System.Parsers,
System.Lang, System.Markup, System.Sgml?