On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 6:56 AM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling <joseph.wakeling@webdrake.net> wrote:

On 17/12/13 01:51, Leandro Motta Barros wrote:

I have some code using the old "all.d" idiom, which I am changing to use the new
"package.d" feature.

Related question -- it seems like rdmd doesn't like package-based code, and can't resolve dependencies as it can with regular modules. Is there any kind of timeframe/roadmap for fixing this?

With these simple examples I sent, rdmd seem to resolve dependecies correctly. For example, with this last example I sent (which prints the class name):

$ rdmd main.d
mylib.util.Foo

$ dmd main.d
main.o: In function `_Dmain':
main.d:(.text._Dmain+0xb): undefined reference to `_D5mylib4util3Foo7__ClassZ'
collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
--- errorlevel 1

$ dmd main.d mylib/util.d
$ ./main
mylib.util.Foo

In this case, at least, rdmd correctly resolved, compiled and linked mylib/util.d, which was imported through a package.

LMB