Tue, 21 Oct 2008 11:04:56 -0700, Sean Kelly wrote: > Sergey Gromov wrote: > > Tue, 21 Oct 2008 09:40:28 -0700, > > Sean Kelly wrote: > >> Don wrote: > >>> We also now have two modules called 'bitmanip', which is somewhat ironic > >>> since we brainstormed for ages trying to come up with a better name for > >>> it. Modules with duplicate names have caused linking problems in the > >>> past -- not sure if that applies here. > >> It applies if the modules from both Phobos and druntime end up in the > >> same library on *nix. Windows doesn't appear to have the same issue. > >> But I'd love to hear suggestions for alternative names-- I'm not > >> terribly good at naming modules :-p. > >> > >> Also, any I'd like to see how people feel about having three top-level > >> packages in druntime vs. one-- an alternative I'd considered was to put > >> everything under core. > > > > I actually was expecting all the runtime stuff to be in core.* and was > > surprised to find std and sys there. > > I didn't even create core until just recently--before that, the modules > in core were global, much like object. So my thoughts on the druntime > package layout are still evolving. I do now think that having a single > top-level package would probably be best, but figured I'd solicit > opinions before changing anything.
I think the <default> package should be left for the user. This also gives you an opportunity to use package protection where appropriate.
