Piotrek wrote:
Don pisze:
Don wrote:
With the druntime project, we now have a run time which is shared
between Tango and Phobos. This is a huge step forward, but it's still
not much use without some common user code.
The highest priorities which I see are, in order:
(1) the C standard library
tango.stdc = std.stdc
(2) low-level compiler-related modules
most of tango.core -- for the most part, this is already part of
druntime.
(3) tango.math.Math + tango.math.IEEE = std.math - tgamma().
Can we get agreement on unification of these, at least?
If we are able to reach agreement on this, I propose the next step
would be to ensure that the contents of these files be made
"identical" on Phobos2 and Tango. ("identical" meaning that when the
Tango code is ported to D2, it will be identical to the Phobos2
version, except for module name differences).
Please read it again. I'm not asking the question "where do we put it?"
Rather, to agree that it WILL eventually go SOMEWHERE. If we agree on
that, there are immediate implications. Those modules have some
functions which differ in naming (mostly in case). That's a difference
we can fix right now without the politics.
I do agree it's a right direction to extract the common functionality
and put it in a one place. But it's a question to the Phobos and Tango
maintainers. After all, more time consuming efforts are needed.
No, it's a question to the community. I'm the primary maintainer of the
math modules in both libraries. The efforts are straightforwards and not
very time consuming. But I don't think I can break code just because I
have a personal desire for unity.
Indeed , I don't think there's a person who don't want to see it happen.
Are people OK with some of their code breaking for the sake of unity?
For the math stuff, that would mean name changes on minor functions such as:
isnormal() -> isNormal()
I need a mandate.
