On Sunday 07 August 2011 23:29:26 Robert Clipsham wrote: > On 07/08/2011 22:18, Jonathan M Davis wrote: > > Personally, I don't see much point in using the package specifier when > > you're not actually using a package hierarchy (you're just making it so > > that everything but stuff which actually uses a hierarchy can use the > > function - it would be a really weird distinction to make). So, it > > wouldn't entirely surprise me if this is completely by design. It might > > be a bug though. > Except package is ~100% useless if you use an *actual* package > hierarchy[1][2][3] (not like phobos which just drops everything in a > top-level package). > > > - Jonathan M Davis > > [1] http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=143 > [2] http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2529 > [3] http://d.puremagic.com/issues/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=package
Ah. Then package is horribly broken at the moment. Lovely. I guess that that just goes to show that it's not used heavily or there would be a lot more complaints about it. - Jonathan M Davis
