On Wednesday, June 05, 2013 14:02:37 Jakob Ovrum wrote: > We have a standard library in disagreement with the language's > encapsulation mechanics. The module/package system in D is almost > ignored in Phobos (and that's probably why the package system > still has all these little things needing ironing out). It seems > to owe influence to typical C and C++ library structure, which is > simply suboptimal in D's module system.
I honestly don't see how Phobos is in disagreement with the module system. No, it doesn't use hierarchy as much as it should, and there are a few modules that are overly large (like std.algorithm or std.datetime), but for the most part, I don't see any problem with its level of encapsulation. It's mainly just its organization which could have been better. My primary objection here is that it seems ridiculous to me create lots of tiny modules. I hate how Java does that sort of thing, but there you're _forced_ to in many cases, whereas we have the opportunity to actually group things together in a single module where appropriate. And having whole modules with only one or two functions is way too small IMHO, and that seems to be what we're proposing here. - Jonathan M Davis
