On Wednesday, 24 June 2015 at 14:16:04 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
On Wednesday, 24 June 2015 at 12:15:10 UTC, Joseph Rushton
Wakeling wrote:
Hello all,
As I promised at DConf (though sadly arriving a bit later than
I'd hoped), I've submitted a PR to convert std.random to a
package:
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/pull/3406
I'd like to ask for some attention to this because, first, I
think it's important that we agree that this particular
package structure is correct/logical, and second, I really
don't want to have to rework this if anyone commits to
std.random in the meanwhile ;-)
Beyond perhaps documentation issues I hope this PR should be
fairly non-controversial and easy to approve (or disapprove).
Is there any point in doing this if we're going to be
redesigning std.random as you've been working on? In fact, it
could get in the way of that, since we could potentially just
make the new version be modules in the package, and the old
version be in std.random.package (meaning that if you imported
std.random, you get the old, deprecated stuff, and if you
import std.random.foo, you get the new stuff).
- Jonathan M Davis
Please not such way. Idea with package 'experimental' and
'deprecated' looks like more preferable.
(This idea was discussed in std.container fork. For example new
random API go to std.experimental.random all old API remain in
std.random, when stable state of new API was approved that
renaming happens: std.random -> std.deprecated.random and in next
DMD/Phobos release std.experimental.random -> std.random. Also
were good provide with new release tool that autofix stuff like
this)
