== Quote from Denis Koroskin ([email protected])'s article > Michel Fortin Wrote: > > While it seems acceptable to use "stdio" in "std.c.stdio", since we're > > wrapping the C header of the same name, I see little justification in > > repeating the "std" in the module name for "std.stdio". Why not change > > it to "std.io"? > > > > (same comment apply to other "std.std*" modules) > > > > I first noticed the strangeness of this when I was new to D, but today > > I mistakenly wrote "import std.io;", which felt more natural, is > > shorter and reads way better than "import std.stdio;", which triggered > > the question. > > > > -- > > Michel Fortin > > [email protected] > > http://michelf.com/ > > > Nice question! > I also quite don't understand why Phobos doesn't take advantage of > hierarchical modules structure. For example, I/O is a large cathegory and a lot of elements belongs to it. Console I/O is just one of example, but there is also network I/O, DMA etc. I believe it is much better to put each independent element in its own module (to reduce intermodular dependencies etc). For example, I put each class in a separate module. > I believe it makes analyzing source code *a lot* easier.
Because then you have yet more stuff to remember to import. Stuff that goes together and is generally used at the same time shoudl be in the same module.
