www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - Module and package with the same name

reply "Francois Retief" <fgretief ieee.org> writes:
Hello,

I have a quick question about modules and packages?  Why can a module not 
have the same name as a packages in D?

I have the following directory/file structure in mind:

kernel/hal.d
kernel/hal/cpu.d
kernel/hal/cpu/arm.d
kernel/hal/cpu/arm/arm7tdmi.d
kernel/hal/cpu/arm/boards.d
kernel/hal/cpu/arm/boards/netarm.d
kernel/hal/cpu/sh4.d
kernel/hal/cpu/sh4/sh7750.d
kernel/hal/cpu/sh4/boards.d
kernel/hal/cpu/sh4/boards/dreamcast.d
etc ...

As I see it, packages are the directories, while modules are the files.  But 
when I try it, (DMD v0.149) I get:



Is this expected behaviour? If so, why this limitation?

Cheers
  Francois
--
Francois Retief
fgretief at ieee dot org
Mar 20 2006
parent reply "Walter Bright" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
"Francois Retief" <fgretief ieee.org> wrote in message 
news:dvn6t3$uh9$1 digitaldaemon.com...



 Is this expected behaviour?


Yes.


 If so, why this limitation?


For the same reason that this doesn't work:

int S;
struct S { ... }

Name resolution should be scope dependent, not semantic dependent.
Mar 20 2006
parent reply Bruno Medeiros <daiphoenixNO SPAMlycos.com> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:

 "Francois Retief" <fgretief ieee.org> wrote in message 
 news:dvn6t3$uh9$1 digitaldaemon.com...



 Is this expected behaviour?


 
 Yes.
 

 If so, why this limitation?


 
 For the same reason that this doesn't work:
 
 int S;
 struct S { ... }
 
 Name resolution should be scope dependent, not semantic dependent.
 
 


Indeed it should. However if the module were to also be the package, 

namespaces) then we could have that behavior and the name resolution 
still be scope dependent.

-- 
Bruno Medeiros - CS/E student
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?BrunoMedeiros#D
Mar 23 2006
parent reply "Walter Bright" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
"Bruno Medeiros" <daiphoenixNO SPAMlycos.com> wrote in message 
news:dvujbc$1j5e$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 Indeed it should. However if the module were to also be the package, 

 namespaces) then we could have that behavior and the name resolution still 
 be scope dependent.


You can do that now:

---------------
module foo;

import bar;
import abc;
-----------------
Mar 23 2006
parent reply "Unknown W. Brackets" <unknown simplemachines.org> writes:
Walter,

I think he means that this:

import foo;

And this:

import foo.bar;

Could work, if modules and packages were "the same thing."  So, 
"foo.func" would be a function in foo, and "foo.bar.func" would be a 
function in foo.bar.  Since, already, foo.bar doesn't necessarily mean 
anything semantic anyway.

At least, that's what I read.

-[Unknown]



 "Bruno Medeiros" <daiphoenixNO SPAMlycos.com> wrote in message 
 news:dvujbc$1j5e$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 Indeed it should. However if the module were to also be the package, 

 namespaces) then we could have that behavior and the name resolution still 
 be scope dependent.


 
 You can do that now:
 
 ---------------
 module foo;
 
 import bar;
 import abc;
 -----------------
Mar 23 2006
parent Bruno Medeiros <daiphoenixNO SPAMlycos.com> writes:
Unknown W. Brackets wrote:

 Walter,
 
 I think he means that this:
 
 import foo;
 
 And this:
 
 import foo.bar;
 
 Could work, if modules and packages were "the same thing."  So, 
 "foo.func" would be a function in foo, and "foo.bar.func" would be a 
 function in foo.bar.  Since, already, foo.bar doesn't necessarily mean 
 anything semantic anyway.
 
 At least, that's what I read.
 
 -[Unknown]
 


Yup, that was it.



-- 
Bruno Medeiros - CS/E student
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?BrunoMedeiros#D
Mar 26 2006