On Thursday, 18 July 2013 at 23:14:39 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
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.
Yes, that is one of the things I tried.. and I'm not working from
the top level since that is the library container folder which
contains all the actual libraries which then contain the packages.
When I rename the all.d files to package and import the package I
get two errors:
Error 1 Error: can only import from a module, not from package JS
Error 2 Error: module JS is in file 'JS.d' which cannot be read
My hierarchy is
/lib/JS/package.d
module JS;
public import ....
and I import JS by using import JS;
vs using all.d
/lib/JS/All.d
module JS.All;
public import ....
and I import JS by using import JS.All;
otherwise everything is identical. .All works without issue.
Note I reverted to 2.062 because 2.063.2 was causing weird errors
in Visual D... so this might be the problem but I remember
getting the same errors when I was trying 2.063.2(but possibly
not)...
In any case, I'll just stick with All for now, I think I like how
explicit it is.
