• Mike (24/24) Aug 08 2014 I'm exploring a technique in D that may help provide an alternate
• H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d (17/33) Aug 08 2014 [...]
• Mike (3/31) Aug 08 2014 Doesn't that introduce a new namespace?
• Dicebot (4/21) Aug 09 2014 It will have "dual" namespace - both `port.symbol` and

"Mike" <none none.com> writes:

I'm exploring a technique in D that may help provide an alternate 
solution to issue 11666 - Separate each platform's port to its 
own folder [1].

The idea is to have the same module declaration in multiple 
files, but guarded by `version`.

// port_linux.d
version (linux):
module port;

// port_windows.d
version (Windows):
module port;

Unfortunately, this fails to compile with the following error:
  Error: Declaration expected, not 'module'

So, it appears the compiler currently requires the module 
declaration to appear first in the file.

A related issue is 12567 - Modules can't be marked deprecated [2].

* Is this an arbitrary limitation, or is there a technical reason 
for it?
* Would a PR allowing `version()`, attributes, etc... to appear 
before the module declaration have any unintended consequences?

Thanks in advance for your thoughtful replies,

Mike

[1] https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11666
[2] https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12567

"H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d" <digitalmars-d puremagic.com> writes:

On Sat, Aug 09, 2014 at 05:08:09AM +0000, Mike via Digitalmars-d wrote:
 I'm exploring a technique in D that may help provide an alternate solution
 to issue 11666 - Separate each platform's port to its own folder [1].
 
 The idea is to have the same module declaration in multiple files, but
 guarded by `version`.
 
 // port_linux.d
 version (linux):
 module port;
 
 // port_windows.d
 version (Windows):
 module port;
 
 Unfortunately, this fails to compile with the following error:
  Error: Declaration expected, not 'module'

[...]

What about this:

	// port.d
	module port;
	version(linux)
		public import port_linux;
	version(Windows)
		public import port_windows;

	// port_linux.d
	... // Linux implementation here

	// port_windows.d
	... // Windows implementation here

?


T

-- 
LINUX = Lousy Interface for Nefarious Unix Xenophobes.

"Mike" <none none.com> writes:

On Saturday, 9 August 2014 at 05:38:33 UTC, H. S. Teoh via 
Digitalmars-d wrote:
 On Sat, Aug 09, 2014 at 05:08:09AM +0000, Mike via 
 Digitalmars-d wrote:
 The idea is to have the same module declaration in multiple 
 files, but
 guarded by `version`.
 
 // port_linux.d
 version (linux):
 module port;
 
 // port_windows.d
 version (Windows):
 module port;
 
 Unfortunately, this fails to compile with the following error:
  Error: Declaration expected, not 'module'

 [...]

 What about this:

 	// port.d
 	module port;
 	version(linux)
 		public import port_linux;
 	version(Windows)
 		public import port_windows;

 	// port_linux.d
 	... // Linux implementation here

 	// port_windows.d
 	... // Windows implementation here

Doesn't that introduce a new namespace?

"Dicebot" <public dicebot.lv> writes:

On Saturday, 9 August 2014 at 06:00:05 UTC, Mike wrote:
 On Saturday, 9 August 2014 at 05:38:33 UTC, H. S. Teoh via
 What about this:

 	// port.d
 	module port;
 	version(linux)
 		public import port_linux;
 	version(Windows)
 		public import port_windows;

 	// port_linux.d
 	... // Linux implementation here

 	// port_windows.d
 	... // Windows implementation here

 Doesn't that introduce a new namespace?

It will have "dual" namespace - both `port.symbol` and 
`port_linux.symbol` will be valid qualified paths (though 
fullyQualifiedName!symbol is likely to show the latter)