UFCS for D

[deadalnix]

Le 30/03/2012 11:40, bls a écrit :
> On 03/30/2012 02:15 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> 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".
>
> This is afaik similar to ADA child packages.
> Quote :
> Ada allows one to extend the functionality of a unit (package) with
> so-called children (child packages). With certain exceptions, all the
> functionality of the parent is available to a child. This means that all
> public and private declarations of the parent package are visible to all
> child packages.

This sound interesting. And why not use public import for that ? It 
wouldn't break any existing code, because it enlarge the field of possibles.