I don't think we should be different just because we can either. The more basic types that differ between Phobos and Tango the harder it is for the two libraries to inter-operate. While, there's already a huge gulf between them, ideally there should be more commonality than there is.
Shrug, Brad On 6/9/2010 7:27 PM, Walter Bright wrote: > > Brad Roberts wrote: >> I thought the key authors had all signed off publically in the forums and >> the general concensus from, well, everyone was that objecting in the first >> place was stupid and the code should be shared. >> >> Has there been more back-channel chatter? >> > > Some. Enough to know that although there wouldn't be legal issues, I don't > think > we should take things just because we can. It's unnecessarily provocational. > >> Now, if std.gregorian is technically better rather than just different, >> then I have no objections going that direction anyway. >> >> My 2 cents, >> Brad >> >> On Wed, 9 Jun 2010, Walter Bright wrote: >> >> >>> Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2010 19:03:23 -0700 >>> From: Walter Bright<[email protected]> >>> Reply-To: Discuss the phobos library for D<[email protected]> >>> To: Discuss the phobos library for D<[email protected]> >>> Subject: [phobos] std.gregorian >>> >>> Although I do not believe that SHOO's work on the date/time is legally >>> infringing on Tango's time code, I feel there's been enough bad feeling >>> about >>> this and that we should not include Tango's time api design in Phobos. >>> >>> I apologize to SHOO for this. I know this is unfair to him. >>> >>> Andrei has given a start to std.gregorian, perhaps SHOO's implementation >>> work >>> can be transferred to this to help complete it? _______________________________________________ phobos mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
