On Thursday, 22 September 2016 at 11:40:17 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
This should be fine. x/package.d is equivalent to module x.


Ok, it looks like no-one thought what I was doing was off-base. I guess this brings up another question. Why doesn't the compiler support modules in a hierarchy?

foo.d
foo/bar.d

The only reason I can see is that you would have to setup some rules on how to handle it when you have both a module file, and a package.d file in a directory with the same name:

foo.d
foo/package.d // huh? error?

Actually, the more I think about it, I'm not sure there's a good reason for the "package.d" semantics to exist. I guess it establishes a pattern when people would like to combine smaller modules into one public module, but it doesn't have to be used that way. The opposite is true that you could use a normal module (not a package.d module) to publicly import smaller modules:

Instead of:
foo/package.d // publically imports fooPart1 and fooPart2
foo/fooPart1.d
foo/fooPart2.d

What was wrong with:
foo.d // still publically imports fooPart1 and fooPart2
foo/fooPart1.d
foo/fooPart2.d

If the package.d file didn't exist, then I don't think there would be any problem with hierarchical modules. Is this the right conclusion? Was package.d a mistake? Maybe the reasoning is that D doesn't really like hierarchical modules, so creating them should look a bit odd?

foo/package.d
foo/bar/package.d
foo/bar/baz/package.d

Reply via email to