Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: > Lars Ivar Igesund wrote: >> 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. >>> >>> >>> Sean >> >> Functionality exposed from the runtime should reside in core, std >> shouldn't be used in druntime and any other packages (sys) is presumingly >> reserved for what corresponds to tango.sys >> >> In any case, a hierarchy of the type >> >> common/ >> core/ >> sys/ >> stdc/ >> >> should be highly considered. This would allow a namespace for >> functionality that is truly common, not only the runtime, but math and >> eventually other functionality. In addition it is naive to believe that >> just because druntime is meant to be a common runtime, that it will be >> the only runtime in the long run. > > A problem I see with the proliferation of top-level packages in the > standard library is that each of them makes homonym user-defined > packages inaccessible. Heck, I have a package called "common" today.
This is not about proliferation, but having _one_ for common functionality. common was just a suggestion that I like, it could be something else that fits the purpose. -- Lars Ivar Igesund blog at http://larsivi.net DSource, #d.tango & #D: larsivi Dancing the Tango
