UFCS for D

[Don Clugston]

On 30/03/12 12:22, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 3/30/2012 2:15 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>> Andrei and I have talked about it, and we think it is because of
>>> difficulties in breaking a module up into submodules of a package.
>>> We think it's something we need to address.
>>
>> Eh? Other people have voiced concerns over that since waaay back in even
>> pre-D1 times. In particular, many people have argued for allowing modules
>> with the same name as a package. Ie: you could have both module "foo" and
>> module "foo.bar". The reasons they gave for wanting this are right
>> along the
>> lines of what you're talking about here. Eventually they got the message
>> that it wasn't gonna happen and they gave up asking for it.
>>
>> Or is there a separate problem you're refering to?
>
> No, that's it. What brings it to the fore is, as I said, the
> kitchen-sink module that is becoming prevalent.
>

To be brutally honest, I don't think that's got much to do with the 
language. It's got to do with Phobos adopting the Big Ball Of Mud design 
pattern. There's no reason for the existing modules to be so huge. Eg, I 
created std.internal.math so that the math modules would stay small.
Not only are the modules huge, they import everything.

I'd like to see some attempt to fix the problem within the language 
right now, before jumping straight into language changes.