On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 12:43:52AM -0700, Jonathan M Davis via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 03, 2018 06:10:10 Soulsbane via Digitalmars-d-learn
> wrote:
> > I've only understood that imports should go in package.d. I'm seeing
> > more and more packages on code.dlang.org
On Wednesday, 3 January 2018 at 07:43:52 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
On Wednesday, January 03, 2018 06:10:10 Soulsbane via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
[...]
The entire reason that the package.d feature was added was so
that it would be possible to split a module into a package
without
On Wednesday, January 03, 2018 06:10:10 Soulsbane via Digitalmars-d-learn
wrote:
> I've only understood that imports should go in package.d. I'm
> seeing more and more packages on code.dlang.org using it for the
> packages primary code. Is this alright? As far as I can tell it's
> just bad form.
I've only understood that imports should go in package.d. I'm
seeing more and more packages on code.dlang.org using it for the
packages primary code. Is this alright? As far as I can tell it's
just bad form. It would be nice to have one of the maintainers
higher up the food chain comment on
