Proposed improvements to the separate compilation model

[Rob T]

>> One of the main selling points of the module system is to 
>> prevent exactly what you are proposing, so I think there must 
>> be a better solution.

> Please explain. Main points of module system is to avoid header 
> compilation time hell and control access. I don't how this is 
> relevant to the topic.

This is what I read when I first read about D, modules are 
supposed to be a way to get rid of the need for maintaining 
separate source files, which as you stated also has the desired 
side effect of getting rid of separate header files.

here's one source: http://dlang.org/overview.html

The proposal as I read it, moves us more backwards than forwards, 
and it seems there's a better way as I had described. If there's 
to be a solution, it should be a solution that retains one source 
file. If we need a separation, it should be automated to prevent 
manual duplication and maintenance hell.

> On Monday, 4 March 2013 at 06:06:14 UTC, Rob T wrote:
>> Manually maintaining a .di file is a bad idea for what should 
>> be obvious reasons
>
> No, they are not obvious at all, please explain.

I did not think that I would have to explain the difference 
between manually maintaining two separate source files containing 
manual duplication of code that must be kept in sync vs manually 
maintaining only one source file with no manual duplication of 
code.

--rt