Thread overview
[Issue 19665] Package modules are meaningless
5 days ago
Seb
5 days ago
Victor Porton
5 days ago
Adam D. Ruppe
5 days ago
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19665

Seb <greeenify@gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |greeenify@gmail.com

--- Comment #1 from Seb <greeenify@gmail.com> ---
I'm not sure I understand the advantage of deprecating a lot of code about a naming issue. What's the advantage of


foo.d
foo/a.d

Over

foo/package.d
foo/a.d

?

--
5 days ago
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19665

--- Comment #2 from Victor Porton <porton@narod.ru> ---
Deprecating, not invalidating.

> What's the advantage of
> 
> 
> foo.d
> foo/a.d
> 
> Over
> 
> foo/package.d
> foo/a.d

The advantage is cleaner idea that it is package foo (and also decreasing the number of path components).

--
5 days ago
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19665

Vladimir Panteleev <dlang-bugzilla@thecybershadow.net> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
                 CC|                            |dlang-bugzilla@thecybershad
                   |                            |ow.net
         Resolution|---                         |INVALID

--- Comment #3 from Vladimir Panteleev <dlang-bugzilla@thecybershadow.net> ---
Not a bug in any D code. Language changes are done via DIPs.

You may want to review the discussions for the feature back when it was introduced for clarification on why this feature was designed the way it is.

--
5 days ago
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19665

Adam D. Ruppe <destructionator@gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |destructionator@gmail.com

--- Comment #4 from Adam D. Ruppe <destructionator@gmail.com> ---
It does bug me that it is inconsistent with other modules though: in no other case does the filename matter (aside from automatic lookups). You are allowed to have blargh.d with module whatever.you.want;. So why must this one special case require the package.d filename?

but meh, it isn't a bug as it is working as designed.

--
5 days ago
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19665

--- Comment #5 from Vladimir Panteleev <dlang-bugzilla@thecybershadow.net> ---
(In reply to Adam D. Ruppe from comment #4)
> It does bug me that it is inconsistent with other modules though: in no other case does the filename matter (aside from automatic lookups). You are allowed to have blargh.d with module whatever.you.want;. So why must this one special case require the package.d filename?

Personally, I always considered that mismatching module and file names was just the implementation being overly permissive. It only works with certain build systems and breaks a number of other assumptions for various tooling, so I'm happy to write that off in the "it works but don't do that" category.

--