Why not std.io instead of std.stdio?

[Denis Koroskin]

Michel Fortin Wrote:

> While it seems acceptable to use "stdio" in "std.c.stdio", since we're 
> wrapping the C header of the same name, I see little justification in 
> repeating the "std" in the module name for "std.stdio". Why not change 
> it to "std.io"?
> 
> (same comment apply to other "std.std*" modules)
> 
> I first noticed the strangeness of this when I was new to D, but today 
> I mistakenly wrote "import std.io;", which felt more natural, is 
> shorter and reads way better than "import std.stdio;", which triggered 
> the question.
> 
> -- 
> Michel Fortin
> michel.fortin at michelf.com
> http://michelf.com/
> 

Nice question!

I also quite don't understand why Phobos doesn't take advantage of hierarchical modules structure. For example, I/O is a large cathegory and a lot of elements belongs to it. Console I/O is just one of example, but there is also network I/O, DMA etc. I believe it is much better to put each independent element in its own module (to reduce intermodular dependencies etc). For example, I put each class in a separate module.

I believe it makes analyzing source code *a lot* easier.