Suggestion for DUB users: The vanity package

Steven Schveighoffer schveiguy at
Wed Oct 20 13:39:22 UTC 2021

On 10/19/21 3:31 PM, Paul Backus wrote:
> On Tuesday, 19 October 2021 at 16:37:00 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
>> If we can have several libraries starting with com and org, why not 
>> have a default package `d` or `dlang` used by everyone, so it would be
>> module d.bitblob;
> Then you have to get everyone using that package to agree not to create 
> naming conflicts. E.g., if I decide to publish ``, nobody else is 
> allowed to publish their own ``.

How is this different from today where your no-package module can be 
named whatever you want? Seems like a separate problem.

> But if you are capable of doing that, then you don't need the package at 
> all: you can just get everybody to agree to avoid naming conflicts at 
> the top level.

Naming conflicts with *other package names* is not the problem. It's the 
fact that the no-package module conflicts with anything else in your 
namespace, including imports from other modules.

e.g. try to name a function `std`, then import `std.stdio`. You will get 
a failure.

Whereas if you name your function `stdio`, then everything works fine.

Note that I didn't think before about `com` and `org`, those can be 
reasonable names. My codebase has a lot of `org` variables, as I'm 
dealing with organizations in a database.


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list