Clarification about compilation model and the mapping of package names to directory.

Basile B. via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d at puremagic.com
Mon Aug 1 12:31:07 PDT 2016


On Friday, 29 April 2016 at 17:44:51 UTC, Bruno Medeiros wrote:
> On 29/04/2016 18:20, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
>> On Friday, 29 April 2016 at 16:14:30 UTC, Bruno Medeiros wrote:
>>> Why is this useful in any substantial way?
>>
>> I use modules for grouping compile time configuration options 
>> in
>> independent files that can be swapped out. The module name 
>> doesn't match
>> the file name because there are several files with the same 
>> module name,
>> only one of which is used at a time.
>
> Are you using DUB here?
>
>>
>> It is also valuable to swap out library implementations. For 
>> example,
>> when modifying Phobos modules, instead of recompiling the 
>> whole thing, I
>> can just specify the path to my modified version.
>>
>> dmd yourfile.d phobosfork.d
>>
>> no need to recreate layers of folders just to appease a random 
>> rule.
>>
>> I also hate having empty folders laying around, and matching 
>> names would
>> force that.
>
> To be clear, I don't mind that DMD itself allows such behavior. 
> But I would like it to be invalid for DUB bundles. So some of 
> those cases you mentioned wouldn't be affected, like modifying 
> Phobos modules.

I agree at 100%. If an IDE has to register a DUB package, the dot 
in the module names must means "folder". Otherwise the software 
cannot determine where is the source of the package and then the 
user has to do it by itself. If the user has to do it by himself 
than what's an IDE for ?


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list