Personally the biggest problem I have are libraries which depend on other libraries. A few of my scripts ended up growing a library I chopped off, but I haven't come up with a way to segregate it from needing XML/ini/cmdln libraries too.

On Wednesday, 12 February 2014 at 02:15:38 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> 1. If you download the source files manually (maybe someone who isn't onboard with git or dub yet?), there's more to do: Either download more than one file, or download one file and unzip. Versus just "download this file and use it".

Personally pulling in one file or many is the same to me. If it comes in a zip, that seems reasonable for those not gitting (git provides zipping a folder, not subfolders).

> 2. You still have to either pass all the files to DMD, or add an extra -Ipath to your RDMD call.

That is true with the single file, so I don't see why this would be relevant.

What is nice about keeping them separate is that people will be able to choose what type of script they will write. And I doubt there will be any common helper functions between these to modules.

On 2/11/2014 10:42 PM, Jesse Phillips wrote:
> On Wednesday, 12 February 2014 at 02:15:38 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> 2. You still have to either pass all the files to DMD, or add an extra
>> -Ipath to your RDMD call.
>
> That is true with the single file, so I don't see why this would be
> relevant.
>

With DMD it's just more additional files vs fewer additional files. But that probably is an irrelevent concern after all since RDMD can just as easily be used instead.

You're right of course about RDMD, not sure what I was thinking there.

> What is nice about keeping them separate is that people will be able to
> choose what type of script they will write. And I doubt there will be
> any common helper functions between these to modules.

With scripts, I'm not sure there's much benefit to importing part of a lib vs the whole thing.

But I may well just be paranoid about multiple files being a problem. Unless there's objections (don't seem to be so far) I may go ahead and split it up with a package.d. If it turns out to be an issue, I could just deal with it then.

On Wednesday, 12 February 2014 at 04:59:11 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> But I may well just be paranoid about multiple files being a problem. Unless there's objections (don't seem to be so far) I may go ahead and split it up with a package.d. If it turns out to be an issue, I could just deal with it then.

Ok, I'll work on a pull request following your formatting as a separate file. You can take the merging/not merging from there.

On 2/12/2014 12:13 AM, Jesse Phillips wrote:
> following your formatting as a separate file.

Done, it's all separate files with a package.d now.