Sean Kelly wrote:
== Quote from Bill Baxter ([email protected])'s article
On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 1:54 AM, grauzone <[email protected]> wrote:
Hmmmmm. Name for a common namespace...... How about.... "common".
Every time you introduce a new standard namespace, a bunch of innocent
existing D programs might become invalid.
I do in fact have a top level package called "common" where I put a
bunch of code that is common to my various projects. But I would
happily rename it in a heartbeat if it meant greater unification
between Phobos and Tango. 'Tis a small price to pay.
druntime already has "core", is there truly a need for a second top-level
namespace?
Agreed. The mentioned packages (C libs + math) could even, if made part
of druntime*, be under core. Ie, 'core.stdc' and 'core.math'.
*I would now like to take a moment to propose that they both should in
fact be part of druntime. C compatibility is boasted as a feature of D,
so the means to that end ought to be standardized (IMHO). And math
libraries are probably the most commonly used in the widest spectrum of
programs.
My only concern is druntime turning into a "third stdlib." Have to draw
a line somewhere.
-- Chris Nicholson-Sauls
