Can we not do this? :)

(exception: std.c.*)

Currently, the culprits are stdint, stdio, and stdarg.  Couldn't we give these modules more natural names?  They're already sitting in the std package, so it's somewhat redundant.  (std.integer, std.io, std.arglist?)

 -- andy

In article <cdegbe$2i1c$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Andy Friesen says...
>
>Can we not do this? :)
>
>(exception: std.c.*)
>
>Currently, the culprits are stdint, stdio, and stdarg.  Couldn't we give these modules more natural names?  They're already sitting in the std package, so it's somewhat redundant.  (std.integer, std.io, std.arglist?)
>
>  -- andy

Makes sense to me. There only problem is that it would break compatibility with all previous releases. Wouldn't be too hard to fix though. Maybe this will be a 2.0 thing?

clayasaurus wrote:
> In article <cdegbe$2i1c$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Andy Friesen says...
> 
>>Can we not do this? :)

I've been thinking the same thing.

I absolutely agree. This isn't C. This is D. C can keep all of its historial quirks. D should be the new coolness.

>>
>>(exception: std.c.*)
>>
>>Currently, the culprits are stdint, stdio, and stdarg.  Couldn't we give these modules more natural names?  They're already sitting in the std package, so it's somewhat redundant.  (std.integer, std.io, std.arglist?)
>>
>> -- andy
> 
> 
> Makes sense to me. There only problem is that it would break compatibility with
> all previous releases. Wouldn't be too hard to fix though. Maybe this will be a
> 2.0 thing? 

I'd be easier to fix NOW (pre 1.0) than push it off to later when there's EVEN MORE code out there. I'd guess that 2.0 would be more geared towards adding cool new features than renaming old modules.

When you're compiling and the compiler doesn't find "std.stdint", it shouldn't take too long to figure out it's now called "std.integer". Let's nip this in the bud!

-- 
Justin (a/k/a jcc7)
http://jcc_7.tripod.com/d/

"J C Calvarese" <jcc7@cox.net> escribió en el mensaje
news:cdeice$2irc$1@digitaldaemon.com
| clayasaurus wrote:
|| In article <cdegbe$2i1c$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Andy Friesen says...
||
||| Can we not do this? :)
|
| I've been thinking the same thing.
|
| I absolutely agree. This isn't C. This is D. C can keep all of its
| historial quirks. D should be the new coolness.
|
|||
||| (exception: std.c.*)
|||
||| Currently, the culprits are stdint, stdio, and stdarg.  Couldn't we give
||| these modules more natural names?  They're already sitting in the std
||| package, so it's somewhat redundant.  (std.integer, std.io,
std.arglist?)
|||
||| -- andy
||
||
|| Makes sense to me. There only problem is that it would break
compatibility with
|| all previous releases. Wouldn't be too hard to fix though. Maybe this
will be a
|| 2.0 thing?
|
| I'd be easier to fix NOW (pre 1.0) than push it off to later when
| there's EVEN MORE code out there. I'd guess that 2.0 would be more
| geared towards adding cool new features than renaming old modules.
|
| When you're compiling and the compiler doesn't find "std.stdint", it
| shouldn't take too long to figure out it's now called "std.integer".
| Let's nip this in the bud!
|
| --
| Justin (a/k/a jcc7)
| http://jcc_7.tripod.com/d/

Agreed.

-----------------------
Carlos Santander Bernal

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 19:03:49 -0500, Carlos Santander B. <carlos8294@msn.com> wrote:

> "J C Calvarese" <jcc7@cox.net> escribió en el mensaje
> news:cdeice$2irc$1@digitaldaemon.com
> | clayasaurus wrote:
> || In article <cdegbe$2i1c$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Andy Friesen says...
> ||
> ||| Can we not do this? :)
> |
> | I've been thinking the same thing.
> |
> | I absolutely agree. This isn't C. This is D. C can keep all of its
> | historial quirks. D should be the new coolness.
> |
> |||
> ||| (exception: std.c.*)
> |||
> ||| Currently, the culprits are stdint, stdio, and stdarg.  Couldn't we give
> ||| these modules more natural names?  They're already sitting in the std
> ||| package, so it's somewhat redundant.  (std.integer, std.io,
> std.arglist?)
> |||
> ||| -- andy
> ||
> ||
> || Makes sense to me. There only problem is that it would break
> compatibility with
> || all previous releases. Wouldn't be too hard to fix though. Maybe this
> will be a
> || 2.0 thing?
> |
> | I'd be easier to fix NOW (pre 1.0) than push it off to later when
> | there's EVEN MORE code out there. I'd guess that 2.0 would be more
> | geared towards adding cool new features than renaming old modules.
> |
> | When you're compiling and the compiler doesn't find "std.stdint", it
> | shouldn't take too long to figure out it's now called "std.integer".
> | Let's nip this in the bud!
> |
> | --
> | Justin (a/k/a jcc7)
> | http://jcc_7.tripod.com/d/
>
> Agreed.

I thought std.c.stdio was named as such because it is a wrapper for c stdio module and there are plans to phase it out entirely, i.e. once we have replaced the functionality it provides with D style code.

If this is the case, then instead of renaming them, we should simply create the new modules i.e. std.io in which we import the existing c wrapper i.e. std.c.stdio until the functionality is phased out/replaced.

This way existing code that relies on std.c.stdio functions can still import it, but new code can use std.io (provided it provides all the functionality required)

Regan

-- 
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

"Regan Heath" <regan@netwin.co.nz> escribió en el mensaje
news:opsbcy2kwe5a2sq9@digitalmars.com
|||| In article <cdegbe$2i1c$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Andy Friesen says...
||||| (exception: std.c.*)
|
| I thought std.c.stdio was named as such because it is a wrapper for c
| stdio module and there are plans to phase it out entirely, i.e. once we
| have replaced the functionality it provides with D style code.
|
| If this is the case, then instead of renaming them, we should simply
| create the new modules i.e. std.io in which we import the existing c
| wrapper i.e. std.c.stdio until the functionality is phased out/replaced.
|
| This way existing code that relies on std.c.stdio functions can still
| import it, but new code can use std.io (provided it provides all the
| functionality required)
|
| Regan
|
| --
| Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

That's what Andy meant: std.c.* would remain the same, but:

std.stdint => std.integer
std.stdio => std.io
std.stdargs => std.arglist

Or any other suitable names, since they're not C wrappers anymore but D modules.

-----------------------
Carlos Santander Bernal

J C Calvarese wrote:

> clayasaurus wrote:
>
>> In article <cdegbe$2i1c$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Andy Friesen says...
>>
>>> Can we not do this? :)
>>
>
> I've been thinking the same thing.
>
> I absolutely agree. This isn't C. This is D. C can keep all of its historial quirks. D should be the new coolness.


I agree.  It's almost the same thing with ti_.  Categories also make things easier for intellisense (although some programs like visual assist can work without the pressing the dot character).

>
>>>
>>> (exception: std.c.*)
>>>
>>> Currently, the culprits are stdint, stdio, and stdarg.  Couldn't we give these modules more natural names?  They're already sitting in the std package, so it's somewhat redundant.  (std.integer, std.io, std.arglist?)
>>>
>>> -- andy
>>
>>
>>
>> Makes sense to me. There only problem is that it would break compatibility with
>> all previous releases. Wouldn't be too hard to fix though. Maybe this will be a
>> 2.0 thing? 
>
>
> I'd be easier to fix NOW (pre 1.0) than push it off to later when there's EVEN MORE code out there. I'd guess that 2.0 would be more geared towards adding cool new features than renaming old modules.
>
> When you're compiling and the compiler doesn't find "std.stdint", it shouldn't take too long to figure out it's now called "std.integer". Let's nip this in the bud!
>


-- 
-Anderson: http://badmama.com.au/~anderson/