Outputting generated .di files to correct module structure

[Rene Zwanenburg]

Done:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7610

On Wednesday, 29 February 2012 at 15:35:23 UTC, Andrei 
Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 2/29/12 9:25 AM, Rene Zwanenburg wrote:
>> The project I'm currently working on is becoming quite large, 
>> and is
>> being compiled to a few different lib files. This is useful, 
>> so the
>> application and tools only have to link to the libraries they 
>> need.
>>
>> We use DMD's interface generation option to create the header 
>> files,
>> which is an awesome feature, but the problem is that it 
>> doesn't output
>> interface files in the package hierarchy. For example, if 
>> there are two
>> modules 'basepackage/package1/module1.d' and
>> 'basepackage/package2/module2.d', the interfaces end up as
>> 'headers/module1.di' and 'headers/module2.di'.
>>
>> Now, when we add the 'headers' directory to the include path, 
>> the
>> compiler won't be able to find module1 when importing
>> 'basepackage/package1/module1'. It works when I simply import 
>> 'module1',
>> which surprises me since the interface retains the original 
>> module
>> declaration.
>>
>> Anyway, DMD not outputting interfaces in the package hierarchy 
>> makes the
>> feature pretty much useless for large projects. Is there a 
>> reason for
>> this behavior, or was this simply never considered? I'm 
>> willing to try
>> and add a new switch to the compiler so it creates the 
>> hierarchy, but
>> I've never touched DMD's source so I'm not sure if I'm the 
>> right person
>> for the job.
>
> I'd put this bug together with the recently-discussed bug that 
> the object file names clash when coming from different 
> packages, in the same bin - the "growing pains" bin.
>
> A lot of stuff has been thought for large modular projects in 
> D, but until recently that boundary hasn't been pushed strongly 
> enough. Therefore, a lot of small logistical details like this 
> one were not paid attention to.
>
> Rene, could you please submit this bug to our bugzilla with 
> importance "critical"? I think this is an important category of 
> bugs because it stymies progress for D's most invested users.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Andrei