On Sunday, 1 July 2018 at 14:23:36 UTC, Yuxuan Shui wrote:
On Sunday, 1 July 2018 at 11:55:17 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Sunday, July 01, 2018 11:36:51 Yuxuan Shui via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
[...]
The entire reason that package.d was added as a feature was so
that modules could be split into packages without breaking
code, and it's still valuable for that.
[...]
I was suggesting we do what Rust did. i.e. 'import foo',
imports foo.d, which can in turn do 'import foo.bar', which
will import foo/bar.d.
You mean that if no package.d is present, the import that *would*
match to the missing package is then equivalent to an automatic
public import for each module prefixed ?
- case 1 : `import foo;` use package.d
foo/package.d
/bar.d
/baz.d
- case 2 : `import foo;` make all stuff (bar/baz) public imports
automatically if no package.d
foo/bar.d
/baz.d
If this is what you mean then this could indeed be added, as
sugar, in addition to the existing system of package. By "could"
i mean from a technical P.o.V, because of course this kind of
stuff are decided elsewhere.
