DIP10005: Dependency-Carrying Declarations is now available for community feedback

[Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d]

On 12/14/16 7:01 AM, Mathias Lang wrote:
>> Trouble is, there's no real difference between doing that, vs.
>> creating a standalone module containing `foo` and `bar` with `import
>> std.range;` as a top-level import.
>
> That was my impression when reading this DIP. I'm very glad to see that
> decoupling made its way up in the growing list of things to do, my only
> concern is that this syntax sounds like a workaround for giant modules.
>
> Phobos is cited as a motivation for this enhancement. Dare I say that we
> have a problem of modules in phobos being too monolithic, and they
> should be split into more packages, like std.range and std.algorithms did ?

Creating many files indeed works around the problem that dependency 
granularity is file-level. I don't think that approach is desirable or 
scalable. -- Andrei