On Thursday, 5 October 2017 at 12:25:27 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
And actually, now that I think about it, this is probably one
of those situations where the defualt fails. So yes, you'll
need a module name.
Right. I had to go back and look at what I wrote in Learning D,
which is the last (and only) time I played around with the
default module behavior. I always use module statements (and you
should too).
When you import dir.sub and the compiler finds it's missing in
its imported module list, it will look in for the `dir/sub.d`
from the current working directory. If it doesn't find it, you
get an import error. If you do this:
dmd main.d ../dir/sub.d
Then sub.d can have any module statement you want -- you could do
this:
module this.is.the.sub.module;
And it wouldn't matter, as long as main.d imported
this.is.the.sub.module and not dir.sub. However, if sub.d has no
module statement, the compiler isn't going to infer a package.
It's going to be in the default package, so it's simply `sub` and
not `dir.sub`. If you import dir.sub, the compiler will still
look for a subdirectory named `dir`, but it won't find it.
This latter bit is your issue. dub is passing dir/sub.d to the
compiler, but without a module statement the compiler treats it
simply as `sub` and your `dir.sub` import fails.
