On Wednesday, 14 December 2016 at 12:01:40 UTC, Mathias Lang
wrote:
That was my impression when reading this DIP. I'm very glad to
see that decoupling made its way up in the growing list of
things to do, my only concern is that this syntax sounds like a
workaround for giant modules.
Phobos is cited as a motivation for this enhancement. Dare I
say that we have a problem of modules in phobos being too
monolithic, and they should be split into more packages, like
std.range and std.algorithms did ?
Yea, I think you put your finger on it: almost all of the stuff
this feature could help achieve in Phobos could be just as well
achieved by splitting stuff up better.
Note, `std.range` and `std.algorithm` could still be much more
modularized than they currently are.
