Yigal Chripun, el 14 de noviembre a las 10:32 me escribiste: > On 14/11/2009 00:28, bearophile wrote: > >Nick Sabalausky: > >>I used to think so, but I'm not so sure anymore. > > > >It's the same for me. I can live without the *, as I can live without D > >typedef. > >There are other changes/fixed that I want for the module system still. > > > >Bye, > >bearophile > > once upon a time there was a suggestion to have a special file that > would define the public API of a package. > > e.g. > > myPackage > a.d > b.d > ... > this.d // special file that defines the public imports > private.d // should not be imported by a "*" import > > then, the user can import myPackage.* and that would search for > this.d in the directory and use its contents instead of importing > all d files in the directory.
This is nice too (same as Python's uglier __init__.py =). Can you add a bug report for this with the subject starting with [module]? -- Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Are you such a dreamer? To put the world to rights? I'll stay home forever Where two & two always makes up five
