I actually really like the way python modules are organised, it's really helpfulfor developping, really easy for unit testing just some modules. If it is that way by default, and allow different structure by adding some boilderplate, that could be really interesting
----- Gaetan 2013/12/13 Felix S. Klock II <[email protected]> > On 13/12/2013 12:53, spir wrote: > >> I think this is a good possibility, make the module/crate organisation >> mirror the filesystem (or the opposite): >> * 1 module = 1 file of code >> * 1 package = 1 dir >> This may be limiting at times, possibility one may want multi-module >> files and multi-file modules. >> > Yes, one may indeed want those things. In particular, *I* want > multi-module files. > > I do not want to move towards a Java-style approach where the package > nesting structure needs to match the file/directory nesting structure. > Being able to declare nested modules within a file is very useful for > flexible namespace control. > > I like our current support for nesting modules in files, and breaking them > out into separate files as one wants. > > But then again, I also think that the current approach of { `extern > mod`... `use`... `mod`... } is pretty understandable once you, well, > understand it. My main complaint has been about the slightly > context-dependent interpretation of paths [1], but that's pretty minor. So > perhaps I have the wrong point-of-view for interpreting these suggestions > for change. > > Cheers, > -Felix > > [1] https://github.com/mozilla/rust/issues/10910 > > > On 13/12/2013 12:53, spir wrote: > >> On 12/13/2013 11:43 AM, Diggory Hardy wrote: >> >>> What would you do? >>> >>> Have no structure (no mod)? Or automatically create it from the file >>> structure? >>> >> >> I think this is a good possibility, make the module/crate organisation >> mirror the filesystem (or the opposite): >> * 1 module = 1 file of code >> * 1 package = 1 dir >> This may be limiting at times, possibility one may want multi-module >> files and multi-file modules. But this forms a good, simple base (anyway, >> we have mini & maxi modules & code files, whatever the logical & physical >> organisations). Another point is that very often we have package (I mean >> crate ;-) sub-dirs which are not packages themselves. Then, as usual, we'd >> have a special code file representing a package at its top dir (the same >> name as the package, or a magic name like 'main'). >> >> Then, module sharing is code file sharing, and package management is dir >> management (trivially .zip-ed or .tar.gz-ed, and then the name "package" is >> here for something). >> >> Denis >> _______________________________________________ >> Rust-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev >> > > > -- > irc: pnkfelix on irc.mozilla.org > email: {fklock, pnkfelix}@mozilla.com > > > _______________________________________________ > Rust-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev >
_______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
