On Wednesday, 25 May 2016 at 23:21:09 UTC, Seb wrote:
Yes, and they are great. However now we have dub and a "serious" standard library ;-)

I've looked into two options to join the dub bandwagon, and both aren't really any good (and the fact that I don't use it myself means it'd probably be unmaintained anyway):

1) subpackages. I have this right now for some of the modules, but it doesn't work very well because I can't version the subpackages independently of the main package, and it adds a fair chunk of overhead writing those json definitions and git tags.

2) full-blown packages... I'd have to create an individual folder hierarchy (probably like 3 directories per one file!) and git repo, along with a dub.json, for each one of my items. Using hard links, I could maintain compatibility with my existing repo and dev setup, so it might not be extremely horrid in the long run.... but still, creating and maintaining like 35 repos (I have 37 public, documented modules right now, most of which can stand alone) isn't my idea of a good time.

The advantage though is I could actually use dub's versioning scheme.

The disadvantage is all the configuration stuff for optional dependencies would be a pain. Currently, if you use dom.d's UTF-8 functions, the module just works, standalone, no dependencies.

If you call one of the encoding translation functions though, it now depends on characterencodings.d, thanks to a lazy import. I really like that! D rox on its own.

Reply via email to