Can I rely on format returned by fullyQualifiedName?

[Jack]

On Saturday, 24 April 2021 at 04:09:15 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
> On Saturday, 24 April 2021 at 03:40:20 UTC, Jack wrote:
>> Can I rely on this format from fullyQualifiedName? for 
>> example, let's say I do:
>>
>> ```d
>> enum s = fullyQualifiedName!f.split;
>> ```
>>
>> where f is a function member of a class. Can I realy that s[0] 
>> is the module name, s[1] is the class name and s[2] the 
>> functio name? is this standard or can the compile change that? 
>> I've tested on dmd, does ldc or gdc do something different?
>>
>
>
> You can rely on the order, but you cannot expect any of the 
> names to be at a specific index. The FQN includes the symbol's 
> entire hierarchy. So you could have one or more package names 
> in front of the module name. Essentially:
>
> {all.package.names.}moduleName.{struct/class/functionName}.symbolName

thank you Mike, having sure I can rely on the other is enough to 
me