[OT] modules vs filenames in "module-name == filename" package systems

[Todd VanderVeen]

== Quote from Steven Schveighoffer (schveiguy at yahoo.com)'s article
> On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 14:51:49 -0400, Nick Sabalausky <a at a.a> wrote:
> > In a language that has a package system that forces package names to be
> > the
> > same as the directory name, and module names to be the same the file name
> > (Such as Java, but not D): What is the point of having packages/modules
> > instead of just simply importing by a relative filepath? Is it just so
> > that
> > it's consistent with refering to a symbol by it's fully-qualified name,
> > or
> > forcibly disallowing absolute paths when importing, or are there other
> > reasons?
> Java doesn't import source files, it imports compiled objects.  Therefore,
> the file/module relationship is superficial -- you could just as easily
> create a java compiler that can compile all packages/modules in one file.
> I think the file/directory model just is easy for people to understand and
> maintain.
> D is different in that it actually requires the source for importing.
> I've always hoped that D moved more towards an import model that used
> compiled objects instead of the source.  There's always the chance that
> objects are out of sync with source, and the compiler can add annotations
> for things like full escape analysis if what you import is always
> generated.
> -Steve

Java Class loaders observe the JVM class file format. This format in turn
specifies that class and interface names always be fully qualified package names.
The dependency resolution and dynamic binding mechanisms presumably rely upon
this. Conceptually, this apparatus could be modified to support an alternate
scheme, but the one class per file is not just superficial.