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?


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

Reply via email to