On 9/22/16 10:29 AM, Jonathan Marler wrote:
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?
Advertising
Before package.d support, you could not do any importing of packages. You could only import modules. package.d was how the compiler allowed importing packages.
I don't know that there is a fundamental difference between foo/package.d and foo.d, but this is just the solution that was chosen. Is it a mistake? I don't think so, it's just a preference.
Prior to this, it was common to put "package" imports into an "all.d" file: foo/all.d // import fooPart1.d fooPart2.d foo/fooPart1.d -Steve
