Fix #2529: explicit protection package #3651

[Dicebot via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Wednesday, 20 August 2014 at 17:19:58 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:
> On 8/20/14, 7:49 AM, ketmar via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Aug 2014 14:33:52 +0000
>> Kagamin via Digitalmars-d-announce
>> <digitalmars-d-announce at puremagic.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Do we need a hierarchy of internals, is the problem this big? 
>>> Why
>>> mybiglib.wisdom is not good?
>> ah, why we need such things as subdirectories at all? CP/M was 
>> fine
>> without concept of subdirectories!
>
> No need to demean the question. It is valid. -- Andrei

Originally flat Phobos hierarchy was considered "good enough". 
Now we can see that such approach doesn't scale well - features 
are often missed because of non-intuitive module placement, 
compile times suffer because of many cross-module dependencies 
(flat hierarchy encourages big modules).

Is there any reason to think that same logic applied to 
sub-packages will scale any better as Phobos size grows? I doubt 
so. In fact I feel it is already beyond the size where it is 
convenient and only reason why even smaller deeply nested modules 
are not an option is exactly because it is too hard to keep both 
existing protection attribute relation and provide easy to 
navigate hierarchy at the same time.

The fact that some of people who have actually tried to use 
package.d support this language change is pretty good anecdotal 
evidence that there is a problem to be solved.