Is package.d a good idea?

[Adam D. Ruppe]

On Sunday, 1 July 2018 at 14:23:36 UTC, Yuxuan Shui wrote:
> I was suggesting we do what Rust did. i.e. 'import foo', 
> imports foo.d, which can in turn do 'import foo.bar', which 
> will import foo/bar.d.

Yeah, that's the way it should have been done in the first place. 
Nowhere else in D does it require a specific filename except 
package.d - it is a pointless inconsistency anyway.