On Wednesday, 19 June 2013 at 07:12:30 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
[..] But even if you can't, I don't think that it's worth it to
complicate the package attribute any further. [..]
I'd like to quote the TDPL foreword by Walter:
"To the best of my knowledge, D offers an unprecedentedly adroit
integration of several powerful programming paradigms:
imperative, object-oriented, functional, and meta.
At first blush, it would appear that such a language could not be
simple. And indeed, D is not a simple language. But I’d argue
that is the wrong way to view a language. A more useful view is,
what do programming solutions in that language look like? Are D
programs complicated and obtuse, or simple and elegant?"
-Walter Bright
Thus, we shouldn't strive so much to make the language simple (by
having the simplest possible definition for the 'package'
keyword), but rather, we should try to make programs, which use
modules broken into packages, look simple, elegant and easy to
understand.
