Fix #2529: explicit protection package #3651

[Dicebot via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Wednesday, 20 August 2014 at 09:26:37 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
> On Wednesday, 20 August 2014 at 07:47:36 UTC, ketmar via 
> Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
>> but it requires to dump all 'subpackages' into one flat 
>> directory and
>> with ugly names.
>
> Huh? If std.datetime and std.regex are subpackages of `std` 
> package, it usually means, they should reside in `std` 
> directory, no? And how explicit package protection can change 
> that?

Your proposal makes such module layout illegal:

std.package1.module1
std.package1.module2
std.package1.subpackage.module1
std.package1.subpackage.module2

(can't have symbols in subpackage that are also available to 
package1 but not whole std / public, must have 
`subpackage_module1` instead, `package_1_subpackage_module1` if 
it must be available for whole std)

It severely limits expressive power of package system for code 
organization and encourages flat hierarchies with minimal 
nesting. It also looks ugly - anyone seeing module name with 
package name mangled in it will feel that there is something 
wrong with the language if it needs to resort to such hacks.