Is package.d a good idea?

[Yuxuan Shui]

On Sunday, 1 July 2018 at 18:03:41 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> On Sunday, 1 July 2018 at 14:23:36 UTC, Yuxuan Shui wrote:
>> I was suggesting we do what Rust did. i.e. 'import foo', 
>> imports foo.d, which can in turn do 'import foo.bar', which 
>> will import foo/bar.d.
>
> Yeah, that's the way it should have been done in the first 
> place. Nowhere else in D does it require a specific filename 
> except package.d - it is a pointless inconsistency anyway.

Now we just need to wait for someone to write the DIP....