Re: Can I rely on format returned by fullyQualifiedName?

[Mike Parker via Digitalmars-d-learn]

On Saturday, 24 April 2021 at 03:40:20 UTC, Jack wrote:
Can I rely on this format from fullyQualifiedName? for example, 
let's say I do:

```d
enum s = fullyQualifiedName!f.split;
```

where f is a function member of a class. Can I realy that s[0] 
is the module name, s[1] is the class name and s[2] the functio 
name? is this standard or can the compile change that? I've 
tested on dmd, does ldc or gdc do something different?



You can rely on the order, but you cannot expect any of the names 
to be at a specific index. The FQN includes the symbol's entire 
hierarchy. So you could have one or more package names in front 
of the module name. Essentially:

{all.package.names.}moduleName.{struct/class/functionName}.symbolName