Module naming conventions

[Bill Baxter]

Stepping aside from the crazy Phango thread, I'd like to see if we can
we try to put together a list of actual arguments for and against
different module naming conventions.  No editorial comments by me here.

Is this list complete?

Convention LC: All package module names are lower case all the time.
Example:   import foo.bar.baz;
Pros:
*) Long established convention (~10 years) used by Phobos

*) Differentiates module names from class names.
    Like class "Stream" in module "std.stream

*) Related: prevents redundancy in fully qualified names
(std.stream.Stream, not std.Stream.Stream)

*) Easy-to-remember rule ("just use lowercase") prevents naming errors
slipping through the cracks on case-agnostic Windows.



Convention CC: All package names are lowercase, but module names are
upper case, and match name of contained class where applicable.

*) Established convention (~4 years) used by Tango

*) Differentiates package names from module names to prevent naming
clashes. (Lets you have file "OpenGL.d" in same directory where there's
an "opengl" package directory)

*) Makes it easy to remember name of module where class FooBar is
defined (it'll be in FooBar.d)

*) Fine granularity approaching one-module-per-class means D's linker 
will generate smaller executables.

[I cancelled the original message to update with Sean's comment about 
linker granularity.]