Sean Kelly, el 22 de octubre a las 16:14 me escribiste:
> 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'.

If phobos is part of a "spec-conformant" compiler, I think it should still be in the std namespace, with the runtime (also in the std namespace).

I this currently there are 2 separated projects for phobos and runtime,
but if in the specification there is only one standard library, all it's
modules should be in the same namespace (std). The fact that now are
2 separated projects is an "implementation detail" and should not impact
in the namespace naming (IHMO).

-- 
Leandro Lucarella (luca) | Blog colectivo: http://www.mazziblog.com.ar/blog/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145  104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
More than 50% of the people in the world have never made
Or received a telephone call