On 04/27/2014 01:11 AM, Dicebot wrote:
On Saturday, 26 April 2014 at 23:05:23 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 04/27/2014 12:43 AM, Dicebot wrote:
On Saturday, 26 April 2014 at 21:57:55 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 04/26/2014 09:27 PM, Daniel Murphy wrote:
We already have a feature to manage conflicts and organisation in D
code - modules!
Named mixin templates are a much closer fit.
Using named mixin templates for pure scope resolution is side effect and
should be discouraged in any reasonable code.
I don't really advocate using named mixin templates directly as much
as just the same lookup rules.
Well that wasn't clear from your comments at all, quite the contrary ;)
...
Wtf?
There are specific D tools
designed for that from the very beginning
Named mixin templates are also 'designed for scope resolution from the
very beginning' if that means anything.
and we should use and/or fix those.
They don't fit. You simply cannot have multiple D modules per file.
I don't see any problem with having lot of files. It is natural way
organizing D code if you consider protection attributes that define
module as minimal encapsulation unit.
I don't see the point of requiring replication of the namespace
structure in directories just for the sake of conflating modules and
namespaces, even though #includes bear a closer resemblance in usage to
imports than using directives and doing better is basically free because
the required lookup semantics are already there. Why discuss anything
but syntax at this point?
