On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 00:22:34 +0200, Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisprog@gmail.com> wrote:

> I was wondering what the general consesus was (if there is one) on whether it's
> valuable to always put module declarations in each module.
>
> Obviously, if you need the module to have a name other than the file name, then
> you need to have the module declaration. However, is it necessarily desirable to
> have it when the module name matches the file name? Or would there even be a
> reason for it to be desirable _not_ to have the module declaration?
>
> I can't think of any particularly strong reasons to have it or not to have it.
> My first reaction is to just always use it, but thinking about it, I'm not sure
> that there's really much point if the file name and the module name already
> match. Does anyone have reasons why it would matter other than personal
> preference?
>
> - Jonathan M Davis

From what I remember in TDPL:
Can be used to rename a module if you have it in a different directory structure than how you use it. E.g. implementation and "headers" in separate folders.
Can be used to rename module when a filename is not a valid D symbol.

-Rory

On 15.07.2010 21:59, Rory McGuire wrote:
>   From what I remember in TDPL:
> Can be used to rename a module if you have it in a different directory
> structure than how you use it. E.g. implementation and "headers" in
> separate folders.

If you use *.di files (headers), you would normally just keep the directory structure, but put the whole thing in a different root directory.  Just having *.d and *.di files in the same directory works too, as the compiler prefers the *.di files.

> Can be used to rename module when a filename is not a valid D symbol.

That would fool the D-specific build tools, and DMD itself too.  In most cases it's easier to just rename the file too.  It can be made to work using a *.di file if you really have to.

On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 23:08:07 +0200, torhu <no@spam.invalid> wrote:

> On 15.07.2010 21:59, Rory McGuire wrote:
>>   From what I remember in TDPL:
>> Can be used to rename a module if you have it in a different directory
>> structure than how you use it. E.g. implementation and "headers" in
>> separate folders.
>
> If you use *.di files (headers), you would normally just keep the directory structure, but put the whole thing in a different root directory.  Just having *.d and *.di files in the same directory works too, as the compiler prefers the *.di files.


Andrei's use case was if you had multiple teams of programmers with some allowed to work on
interfaces and others only allowed to work on the implementations.

>
>> Can be used to rename module when a filename is not a valid D symbol.
>
> That would fool the D-specific build tools, and DMD itself too.  In most cases it's easier to just rename the file too.  It can be made to work using a *.di file if you really have to.

Andrei's example had hyphens in the file name, sometimes policy comes first? yes no. Not that I
can think of a reason for the policy off hand perhaps GTK naming convention.

On 15.07.2010 23:28, Rory McGuire wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 23:08:07 +0200, torhu<no@spam.invalid>  wrote:
>
>>  On 15.07.2010 21:59, Rory McGuire wrote:
>>>     From what I remember in TDPL:
>>>  Can be used to rename a module if you have it in a different directory
>>>  structure than how you use it. E.g. implementation and "headers" in
>>>  separate folders.
>>
>>  If you use *.di files (headers), you would normally just keep the
>>  directory structure, but put the whole thing in a different root
>>  directory.  Just having *.d and *.di files in the same directory works
>>  too, as the compiler prefers the *.di files.
>
>
> Andrei's use case was if you had multiple teams of programmers with some
> allowed to work on
> interfaces and others only allowed to work on the implementations.
>
>>
>>>  Can be used to rename module when a filename is not a valid D symbol.
>>
>>  That would fool the D-specific build tools, and DMD itself too.  In most
>>  cases it's easier to just rename the file too.  It can be made to work
>>  using a *.di file if you really have to.
>
> Andrei's example had hyphens in the file name, sometimes policy comes
> first? yes no. Not that I
> can think of a reason for the policy off hand perhaps GTK naming
> convention.

Seem a bit far fetched those examples, but ok ;)