Time to destroy Walter: breaking modules into packages

[nazriel]

On Thursday, 6 June 2013 at 18:10:11 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>
> If you have that problem, then you don't publicly import the 
> entire module.
> It's up to the package designer to decide which portions of the 
> package get
> publicly imported. But since std.datetime.Foo would be 
> ambiguous, I don't
> think that it really matters anyway. In that case, you're 
> simply forced to
> refer to it by its actual module rather than by the package. 
> The only time
> that something like this is likely to be a concern is when you 
> add a
> conflicting function to another module in the package, because 
> then
> std.datime.Foo was working and then ceased to work. That's 
> arguably cause for
> being careful about what you choose to publicly import in 
> package.d, but I
> don't think that it invalidates the feature design at all.
>

Ok, after carefully rereading thread now I understand your point. 
Preventing breakage when std.datetime is splited into sub 
packages - ok.

But still it looks weird to me that allowing access to 
std.datetime.time.Clock via std.datetime.Clock, even though Clock 
is defined in std.datetime.time and std.datetime.package is only 
publicly importing it, is ok. I guess whatever suits you :))

>> Also I see we are going with Andrei's DIP route.
>
> How so? What Walter has done is almost identical to DIP 37. I 
> believe that the
> only difference is that std.datetime.package would have module 
> std.datetime; at
> the top, whereas DIP 37 currently says that it would have module
> std.datetime.package;
>

Ach pardon, I am lost in all those DIPs. I recalled that Andrei's 
proposed package.d file, those I referred to your DIP37 (which 
seems to be summary of Andrei's DIP?) as Andrei's

>> I am glad Walter is tackling it, because it is really useful
>> feature, but please take a chill pill and rethink all corner
>> cases.
>
> We've already discussed this at length. It's possible that we 
> missed
> something, but this proposal is not something that we just 
> jumped into without
> thinking it through first. In fact, it actually took quite a 
> bit to talk Walter
> into the necessity of it in the first place.
>

Sorry, it is just the impression that this feature was requested 
very long time ago, Martin's and Andrei's DIPs were staging and 
recently talk by Adam Wilson made it interesting to the D "crew".

If it was carefully discussed and I somehow missed those 
discussion or I am not allowed to see them, then I am sorry and 
please ignore this and my previous post in this topic.

> - Jonathan M Davis

Best regards,
Damian Ziemba