On Friday, 29 April 2016 at 17:44:51 UTC, Bruno Medeiros wrote:
On 29/04/2016 18:20, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Friday, 29 April 2016 at 16:14:30 UTC, Bruno Medeiros wrote:
Why is this useful in any substantial way?
I use modules for grouping compile time configuration options
in
independent files that can be swapped out. The module name
doesn't match
the file name because there are several files with the same
module name,
only one of which is used at a time.
Are you using DUB here?
It is also valuable to swap out library implementations. For
example,
when modifying Phobos modules, instead of recompiling the
whole thing, I
can just specify the path to my modified version.
dmd yourfile.d phobosfork.d
no need to recreate layers of folders just to appease a random
rule.
I also hate having empty folders laying around, and matching
names would
force that.
To be clear, I don't mind that DMD itself allows such behavior.
But I would like it to be invalid for DUB bundles. So some of
those cases you mentioned wouldn't be affected, like modifying
Phobos modules.
I agree at 100%. If an IDE has to register a DUB package, the dot
in the module names must means "folder". Otherwise the software
cannot determine where is the source of the package and then the
user has to do it by itself. If the user has to do it by himself
than what's an IDE for ?
