Proposal: this.d

[Anders F Björklund]

Janice Caron wrote:

>>     Doesn't seem worth it, to me.
> 
> Well, consider that you initially create a package called
> x
> 
> Now the module is imported by
> import x;
> 
> and then, and some later stage, the project gets bigger, and you want to 
> throw extra source files into the mix. The desirable thing is to store 
> all those extra source files in a subdirectory called x, but that's not 
> permitted because x exists. So you move x into your new subdirectory - 
> but now it has to be refered to as x.x, so existing code which imports x 
> breaks, and you have to recompile it all -- which may not even be 
> possible if x is a published library, and the source code which imports 
> it is out of your hands.
> 
> However, if you could just rename the source file " this.d", and stick 
> it into the subdirectory, then you'd get the ability to add extra files 
> to the package *without breaking deployed code*
> 
> That seems worth it to me.

Fair enough. There is nothing contradictory between this "x" change
and how the "x.x" has traditionally worked so it's all up to Walter.

Guess I'm too used to C's libraries and frameworks, that use the x.x.
(such as wx.wx or sdl.sdl or gl.gl or al.al, or any Apple frameworks)

--anders