October 22, 2008
Jason House wrote:
> Sean Kelly Wrote:
> 
>> Don wrote:
>>> 'std', 'stdc' and 'sys' sound OK to me. Although is there any reason why stdc couldn't be part of 'sys'?
>>> IMHO: 'common' sounds far too generic. 'core' is borderline.
>> My current thought is to have:
>>
>> core/
>>      stdc/
>>      sys/posix
>>      sys/windows
>>
>> (yes, I'm planning to move posix support out of stdc)
>>
>> Alternatives to core are: lang, d, base...  But I like core the best so far.
> 
> What happens to the other parts of Phobos? Like others, I hope it will be ranamed from std to phobos. 

That isn't something I can answer, though I'd expect Phobos to continue using 'std'.


Sean
October 22, 2008
On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 18:47:49 -0400, Jason House wrote:

> Sean Kelly Wrote:
> 
>> Don wrote:
>> > 
>> > 'std', 'stdc' and 'sys' sound OK to me. Although is there any reason
>> > why stdc couldn't be part of 'sys'?
>> > IMHO: 'common' sounds far too generic. 'core' is borderline.
>> 
>> My current thought is to have:
>> 
>> core/
>>      stdc/
>>      sys/posix
>>      sys/windows
>> 
>> (yes, I'm planning to move posix support out of stdc)
>> 
>> Alternatives to core are: lang, d, base...  But I like core the best so far.
> 
> What happens to the other parts of Phobos? Like others, I hope it will be ranamed from std to phobos.

Would be nice no have std renamed to phobos. This would enable a common
ground and just looks well designed. It would also remove confusion for
newcomers (why is std also named phobos?).
But I don't think this will happen...


(...and tango should be renamed to deimos, so both can circle around mars - just kidding)
October 23, 2008
On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 22:44:56 +0200, Simen Kjaeraas wrote:

> On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 20:42:05 +0200, Sean Kelly <sean@invisibleduck.org> wrote:
> 
>> Don wrote:
>>>  'std', 'stdc' and 'sys' sound OK to me. Although is there any reason
>>> why stdc couldn't be part of 'sys'?
>>> IMHO: 'common' sounds far too generic. 'core' is borderline.
>>
>> My current thought is to have:
>>
>> core/
>>      stdc/
>>      sys/posix
>>      sys/windows
>>
>> (yes, I'm planning to move posix support out of stdc)
>>
>> Alternatives to core are: lang, d, base...  But I like core the best so far.
>>
>>
>> Sean
> 
> core is good. d or base also, but I think core is the best.

I like core. std better if phobos would step aside, for the reasons already stated.
October 23, 2008
Moritz Warning wrote:

> Would be nice no have std renamed to phobos. This would enable a common ground and just looks well designed. It would also remove confusion for
> newcomers (why is std also named phobos?).
> But I don't think this will happen...
> 
> 
> (...and tango should be renamed to deimos, so both can circle around mars - just kidding)

Then again "etc" was already named deimos, so it would still confuse...

http://dsource.org/projects/deimos/
http://www.dsource.org/forums/viewforum.php?f=26

Everything but etc.c.zlib and etc.gamma died, but that's another story.

--anders
October 23, 2008
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
>> Sean Kelly wrote:
>>
>>> Don wrote:
>>>> We also now have two modules called 'bitmanip', which is somewhat ironic
>>>> since we brainstormed for ages trying to come up with a better name for
>>>> it. Modules with duplicate names have caused linking problems in the
>>>> past -- not sure if that applies here.
>>> It applies if the modules from both Phobos and druntime end up in the
>>> same library on *nix.  Windows doesn't appear to have the same issue.
>>> But I'd love to hear suggestions for alternative names-- I'm not
>>> terribly good at naming modules :-p.
>>>
>>> Also, any I'd like to see how people feel about having three top-level
>>> packages in druntime vs. one-- an alternative I'd considered was to put
>>> everything under core.
>>>
>>>
>>> Sean
>>
>> Functionality exposed from the runtime should reside in core, std shouldn't
>> be used in druntime and any other packages (sys) is presumingly reserved
>> for what corresponds to tango.sys
>>
>> In any case, a hierarchy of the type
>>
>> common/
>>   core/
>>   sys/
>>   stdc/
>>
>> should be highly considered. This would allow a namespace for functionality
>> that is truly common, not only the runtime, but math and eventually other
>> functionality. In addition it is naive to believe that just because
>> druntime is meant to be a common runtime, that it will be the only runtime
>> in the long run.
> 
> A problem I see with the proliferation of top-level packages in the standard library is that each of them makes homonym user-defined packages inaccessible. Heck, I have a package called "common" today.
> 
> Andrei

I thought that's what this idea was trying to address ;-P ... Having "common" in the global namespace is only a single identifier; having "core", "sys", "stdc" and "std" is 4.
October 23, 2008
Wed, 22 Oct 2008 15:56:30 +0200,
Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
> In any case, a hierarchy of the type
> 
> common/
>   core/
>   sys/
>   stdc/
> 
> should be highly considered. This would allow a namespace for functionality that is truly common, not only the runtime, but math and eventually other functionality. In addition it is naive to believe that just because druntime is meant to be a common runtime, that it will be the only runtime in the long run.

There is no 'truly common' functionality beyond the absolutely necessary core runtime.  The fact that Phobos and Tango share some code only means that such code is ought to be in any stand-alone, general-purpose library.  Not that it must be built-in.
October 23, 2008
Wed, 22 Oct 2008 11:42:05 -0700,
Sean Kelly wrote:
> Don wrote:
> > 
> > 'std', 'stdc' and 'sys' sound OK to me. Although is there any reason why
> > stdc couldn't be part of 'sys'?
> > IMHO: 'common' sounds far too generic. 'core' is borderline.
> 
> My current thought is to have:
> 
> core/
>      stdc/
>      sys/posix
>      sys/windows
> 
> (yes, I'm planning to move posix support out of stdc)

I like it.
October 23, 2008
Sergey Gromov wrote:
> Wed, 22 Oct 2008 15:56:30 +0200,
> Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
>> In any case, a hierarchy of the type
>>
>> common/
>>   core/
>>   sys/
>>   stdc/
>>
>> should be highly considered. This would allow a namespace for functionality
>> that is truly common, not only the runtime, but math and eventually other
>> functionality. In addition it is naive to believe that just because
>> druntime is meant to be a common runtime, that it will be the only runtime
>> in the long run.
> 
> There is no 'truly common' functionality beyond the absolutely necessary core runtime.  The fact that Phobos and Tango share some code only means that such code is ought to be in any stand-alone, general-purpose library.  Not that it must be built-in.

??? Don't understand.
Are you simply saying that there's no need for standard libraries?
October 23, 2008
Thu, 23 Oct 2008 17:47:46 +0200,
Don wrote:
> Sergey Gromov wrote:
> > Wed, 22 Oct 2008 15:56:30 +0200,
> > Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
> >> In any case, a hierarchy of the type
> >>
> >> common/
> >>   core/
> >>   sys/
> >>   stdc/
> >>
> >> should be highly considered. This would allow a namespace for functionality that is truly common, not only the runtime, but math and eventually other functionality. In addition it is naive to believe that just because druntime is meant to be a common runtime, that it will be the only runtime in the long run.
> > 
> > There is no 'truly common' functionality beyond the absolutely necessary core runtime.  The fact that Phobos and Tango share some code only means that such code is ought to be in any stand-alone, general-purpose library.  Not that it must be built-in.
> 
> ??? Don't understand.
> Are you simply saying that there's no need for standard libraries?

I can see a reason for a general-purpose library which is supplied with a compiler.  It's for faster setup, faster learning, and for quick-n-dirty utilities with less dependencies.

I can see why one would want a different general-purpose library instead of the default.  It's for more appealing (for that one person) library architecture and for different trade-offs.

I can see a reason for a specialized math library, biological, chemical library etc.  They're specialized.

But I cannot justify a separate library only because Phobos and Tango happen to use the same approach in some parts.  A library without any architecture, with only purpose to make Phobos and Tango dependent upon it, and to make users wonder where to search for a particular general- purpose functionality.
October 25, 2008
Jesse Phillips, el 23 de octubre a las 02:04 me escribiste:
> On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 22:44:56 +0200, Simen Kjaeraas wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 20:42:05 +0200, Sean Kelly <sean@invisibleduck.org> wrote:
> > 
> >> Don wrote:
> >>>  'std', 'stdc' and 'sys' sound OK to me. Although is there any reason
> >>> why stdc couldn't be part of 'sys'?
> >>> IMHO: 'common' sounds far too generic. 'core' is borderline.
> >>
> >> My current thought is to have:
> >>
> >> core/
> >>      stdc/
> >>      sys/posix
> >>      sys/windows
> >>
> >> (yes, I'm planning to move posix support out of stdc)
> >>
> >> Alternatives to core are: lang, d, base...  But I like core the best so far.
> >>
> >>
> >> Sean
> > 
> > core is good. d or base also, but I think core is the best.
> 
> I like core. std better if phobos would step aside, for the reasons already stated.

I think std is the best too. It's a little confusing that there are 2 *standard* namespaces :S

-- 
Leandro Lucarella (luca) | Blog colectivo: http://www.mazziblog.com.ar/blog/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145  104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
When I was a child I had a fever
My hands felt just like two balloons.
Now I've got that feeling once again
I can't explain you would not understand
This is not how I am.
I have become comfortably numb.