On Thursday, July 18, 2013 23:53:53 JS wrote: > On Thursday, 18 July 2013 at 19:35:15 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: > > On Thursday, July 18, 2013 11:38:41 JS wrote: > >> Essentially all emulates the package.d, and I like it because > >> it's descriptive and easily maintainable... thats all I was > >> after > >> in the first place. Too bad package doesn't work properly ;/ > > > > Do you mean the package attribute or package.d? package.d > > should work just > > fine. I'm not aware of any outstanding bugs with it. The > > attribute is still > > broken though, I believe. > > > > - Jonathan M Davis > > When I used package.d things didn't work out like they do using > all. It may be due to bugs on my end(I had a few typos). Maybe I > will try it again though(simple rename and remove .all).
Well, what you were posting was wrong, and I believe that I pointed out why. A package.d file's module declaration needs to have the same name as the package. So, if you have abc/foo/package.d then package.d needs module abc.foo; for its module declaration. Then you import the package as if it were a module, so you get any public imports which were in it. But as I said before, this won't work for the top level, because the top level isn't a package. You need a sub-folder to have a package. - Jonathan m Davis
