Is package.d a good idea?

[WebFreak001]

On Sunday, 1 July 2018 at 11:36:51 UTC, Yuxuan Shui wrote:
> In Rust, they have something call mod.rs, which is very similar 
> to package.d. When you use a module 'foo' in Rust, it can 
> either be 'foo.rs' or 'foo/mod.rs'. If 'foo' has sub-modules, 
> it has to be 'foo/mod.rs'.
>
> Now in the Rust 2018 edition, they are getting rid of mod.rs. 
> So when you import 'foo', rustc will always look for 'foo.rs', 
> and if 'foo' has submodules, it can still reside in 
> 'foo/submodule.rs'.
>
> This makes me think if package.d is a good idea, and if we 
> should try to get rid of it as well.

when I started D I was really confused about just this one thing 
as well! We should definitely get rid of package.d and support 
just having packages along modules without that weird error 
(foo.d + foo/something.d which will have modules foo and 
foo.something)