Modules vs Packages

[Julio César Carrascal Urquijo]

Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
> "Giuseppe Bilotta" <giuseppe.bilotta at gmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:fbtpp1$2k8t$1 at digitalmars.com...
> 
>> I see no reason why we couldn't have
>>
>> package.d
>> package/module1.d
>> package/module2.d
>>
> 
> This has been brought up so many times.. I think Walter needs to put an 
> explanation of this on the modules page.
> 
> I don't see the reason for it either.

I think it was disallowed because package.d could contain some symbol 
with the same name as another module in the package. For example:

// package.d
struct a {};

// package/a.d
...

// main.d

import package.a;

In this case it might be unclear whether the import refers to the struct 
in package.d or the module package.a.

On the other hand, Kirk McDonald's suggestion to add a "this.d" module 
is very interesting. This should probably discussed further.