Proposal: this.d

[Anders F Björklund]

Janice Caron wrote:

> As I see it, the problem (or at least, /a/ problem) is that if I have 
> modules:
> x.a
> x.b
> x.c
> x.d
> 
> Then I cannot simultaneously have a module called
> x
> 
> (and have it be in the same package as x.a, etc.). And yet, that is 
> often exactly what I want to do. The "D-way" seems to be to name the package
> x.x

Yup, it is.

> but that's ugly, so, if naming a package
> x.this
> 
> will allow me to refer to it as just x, then I'm all for it. 

Doesn't seem worth it, to me.

--anders