It seems ugly to me to have modules like std.stdio, std.stdarg, std.stdint
and all the std.c.stdio, std.c.stdlib and friends. Anyone else think
something should be done? The most obvious choice is to change "std" to "d"
and move "std.c.foo" to "c.foo". For example the directory structure would
become (where indenting indicates nesting)
phobos
  etc (same as before)
  c
    stdio
    stdlib
    stdarg
    ...
  d
    boxer
    conv
    ctype
    date
    ...
    stdarg
    stdio
    string
    ...
    zlib

For example instead of
  import std.stdio;
  import std.c.stdio;
  import std.string;
you'd write
  import d.stdio;
  import c.stdio;
  import d.string;

On Tue, 31 May 2005 21:04:24 -0400, Ben Hinkle wrote:

> It seems ugly to me to have modules like std.stdio, std.stdarg, std.stdint
> and all the std.c.stdio, std.c.stdlib and friends. Anyone else think
> something should be done? The most obvious choice is to change "std" to "d"
> and move "std.c.foo" to "c.foo". For example the directory structure would
> become (where indenting indicates nesting)
> phobos
>   etc (same as before)
>   c
>     stdio
>     stdlib
>     stdarg
>     ...
>   d
>     boxer
>     conv
>     ctype
>     date
>     ...
>     stdarg
>     stdio
>     string
>     ...
>     zlib
> 
> For example instead of
>   import std.stdio;
>   import std.c.stdio;
>   import std.string;
> you'd write
>   import d.stdio;
>   import c.stdio;
>   import d.string;

Seems too sensible ... it'll never fly ;-)

Actually, I like the idea. It looks good and clearly understandable.

I won't mind updating my existing source code for this change. However it would help if we had a built-in compiler version identifier.

  d_version(0,126)
     import d.stdio;
  else
     import std.stdio;



-- 
Derek
Melbourne, Australia
1/06/2005 11:41:50 AM

I like the idea, though it would break all the existing code.

Ben Hinkle wrote:
> It seems ugly to me to have modules like std.stdio, std.stdarg, std.stdint and all the std.c.stdio, std.c.stdlib and friends. Anyone else think something should be done? The most obvious choice is to change "std" to "d" and move "std.c.foo" to "c.foo". For example the directory structure would become (where indenting indicates nesting)
> phobos
>   etc (same as before)
>   c
>     stdio
>     stdlib
>     stdarg
>     ...
>   d
>     boxer
>     conv
>     ctype
>     date
>     ...
>     stdarg
>     stdio
>     string
>     ...
>     zlib
> 
> For example instead of
>   import std.stdio;
>   import std.c.stdio;
>   import std.string;
> you'd write
>   import d.stdio;
>   import c.stdio;
>   import d.string;
> 
> 

In article <d7j1ir$82d$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Ben Hinkle says...
>
>It seems ugly to me to have modules like std.stdio, std.stdarg, std.stdint and all the std.c.stdio, std.c.stdlib and friends. Anyone else think

I'd try renaming
std.stdio > std.io
std.stdarg > std.arg
std.stdint > std.integer
for starters.

>something should be done? The most obvious choice is to change "std" to "d"
>and move "std.c.foo" to "c.foo". For example the directory structure would
>become (where indenting indicates nesting)
>phobos
>  etc (same as before)
>  c
>    stdio
>    stdlib
>    stdarg
>    ...
>  d
>    boxer
>    conv
>    ctype
>    date
>    ...
>    stdarg
>    stdio
>    string
>    ...
>    zlib
>
>For example instead of
>  import std.stdio;
>  import std.c.stdio;
>  import std.string;
>you'd write
>  import d.stdio;
>  import c.stdio;
>  import d.string;
>
>

I suggested a similar idea a couple years ago (before we had "std"), but it
turned out I was wrong.

Walter's message from 17 Oct 2003:

"What happened was that I'd prefer just 'd', but it wound up causing problems because 'd' was commonly used as a local variable name. 'D' is rarely used, so seemed to make better sense.

"Compromises everywhere, sigh <g>."

(http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?D/18378)


We managed to convince him that "D" wasn't good enough either and finally Walter selected "std" as the name. I think Phobos could use some reorganization, but I don't think "d" is the answer.

jcc7

> I suggested a similar idea a couple years ago (before we had "std"), but
> it
> turned out I was wrong.

Yeah I had a feeling it was proposed back when the Great Rename happened but I was too lazy to check the archives :-(

> Walter's message from 17 Oct 2003:
>
> "What happened was that I'd prefer just 'd', but it wound up causing
> problems
> because 'd' was commonly used as a local variable name. 'D' is rarely
> used,
> so seemed to make better sense.
>
> "Compromises everywhere, sigh <g>."
>
> (http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?D/18378)

It's true that the code

  import d.string;
  int main() {
    int d = 10;
    char[] s = d.string.toString(d);
  }

would need to be written as either

  import d.string;
  int main() {
    int d = 10;
    char[] s = toString(d);
  }

or

  import d.string;
  int main() {
    int d = 10;
    char[] s = .d.string.toString(d);
  }

but to me that's ok. I wouldn't think "d" or "c" would be common top-level names. Importing in non-top-level scopes is unusual and not recommended IIRC so really the only conflict would be for top-level names.

> We managed to convince him that "D" wasn't good enough either and finally
> Walter
> selected "std" as the name. I think Phobos could use some reorganization,
> but I
> don't think "d" is the answer.
>
> jcc7

The best name for such package is 'foo'.
As nobody in good mood will name anything
by this name.

In each joke there is a portion of ... joke.

Andrew.


"Ben Hinkle" <ben.hinkle@gmail.com> wrote in message news:d7j1ir$82d$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> It seems ugly to me to have modules like std.stdio, std.stdarg, std.stdint
> and all the std.c.stdio, std.c.stdlib and friends. Anyone else think
> something should be done? The most obvious choice is to change "std" to
> "d" and move "std.c.foo" to "c.foo". For example the directory structure
> would become (where indenting indicates nesting)
> phobos
>  etc (same as before)
>  c
>    stdio
>    stdlib
>    stdarg
>    ...
>  d
>    boxer
>    conv
>    ctype
>    date
>    ...
>    stdarg
>    stdio
>    string
>    ...
>    zlib
>
> For example instead of
>  import std.stdio;
>  import std.c.stdio;
>  import std.string;
> you'd write
>  import d.stdio;
>  import c.stdio;
>  import d.string;
>
> 

J C Calvarese wrote:
> In article <d7j1ir$82d$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Ben Hinkle says...
> 
>>It seems ugly to me to have modules like std.stdio, std.stdarg, std.stdint and all the std.c.stdio, std.c.stdlib and friends. Anyone else think 
> 
> 
> I'd try renaming std.stdio > std.io std.stdarg > std.arg
> std.stdint > std.integer
> for starters.

Makes perfect snese to me ...
Remove the redundancy, what the hell is the meaning of "stdio" inside "std"? just call it "io"!

> 
> 
>>something should be done? The most obvious choice is to change "std" to "d" and move "std.c.foo" to "c.foo". For example the directory structure would become (where indenting indicates nesting)
>>phobos
>> etc (same as before)
>> c
>>   stdio
>>   stdlib
>>   stdarg
>>   ...
>> d
>>   boxer
>>   conv
>>   ctype
>>   date
>>   ...
>>   stdarg
>>   stdio
>>   string
>>   ...
>>   zlib
>>
>>For example instead of
>> import std.stdio;
>> import std.c.stdio;
>> import std.string;
>>you'd write
>> import d.stdio;
>> import c.stdio;
>> import d.string;
>>
>>
> 
> 
> I suggested a similar idea a couple years ago (before we had "std"), but it
> turned out I was wrong. 
> 
> Walter's message from 17 Oct 2003:
> 
> "What happened was that I'd prefer just 'd', but it wound up causing problems
> because 'd' was commonly used as a local variable name. 'D' is rarely used,
> so seemed to make better sense.
> 
> "Compromises everywhere, sigh <g>."
> 
> (http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?D/18378)
> 
> 
> We managed to convince him that "D" wasn't good enough either and finally Walter
> selected "std" as the name. I think Phobos could use some reorganization, but I
> don't think "d" is the answer.
> 
> jcc7

Ah, how sad, I kind of liked the idea :/

atleast
std.c.*
should be renamed to
cstd.*
or something like that.

So I'll be an ass, and postulate "use mango.io instead?"

<g>


J C Calvarese wrote:
> In article <d7j1ir$82d$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Ben Hinkle says...
> 
>>It seems ugly to me to have modules like std.stdio, std.stdarg, std.stdint and all the std.c.stdio, std.c.stdlib and friends. Anyone else think 
> 
> 
> I'd try renaming std.stdio > std.io std.stdarg > std.arg
> std.stdint > std.integer
> for starters.
> 
> 
>>something should be done? The most obvious choice is to change "std" to "d" and move "std.c.foo" to "c.foo". For example the directory structure would become (where indenting indicates nesting)
>>phobos
>> etc (same as before)
>> c
>>   stdio
>>   stdlib
>>   stdarg
>>   ...
>> d
>>   boxer
>>   conv
>>   ctype
>>   date
>>   ...
>>   stdarg
>>   stdio
>>   string
>>   ...
>>   zlib
>>
>>For example instead of
>> import std.stdio;
>> import std.c.stdio;
>> import std.string;
>>you'd write
>> import d.stdio;
>> import c.stdio;
>> import d.string;
>>
>>
> 
> 
> I suggested a similar idea a couple years ago (before we had "std"), but it
> turned out I was wrong. 
> 
> Walter's message from 17 Oct 2003:
> 
> "What happened was that I'd prefer just 'd', but it wound up causing problems
> because 'd' was commonly used as a local variable name. 'D' is rarely used,
> so seemed to make better sense.
> 
> "Compromises everywhere, sigh <g>."
> 
> (http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?D/18378)
> 
> 
> We managed to convince him that "D" wasn't good enough either and finally Walter
> selected "std" as the name. I think Phobos could use some reorganization, but I
> don't think "d" is the answer.
> 
> jcc7

>>Walter's message from 17 Oct 2003:
>>
>>"What happened was that I'd prefer just 'd', but it wound up causing problems
>>because 'd' was commonly used as a local variable name. 'D' is rarely used,

Who names a variable d? That is the most non-descriptive variable name ever, and anyone who uses it should be slapped with a fine, payable to Walter's pay pal account.

x, y.. z.. I can see.. Like in coordinate systems.. I suppose I can event see w and h if you are so lazy you cant write width and height.. Which btw drives me insane... If d is a common variable name, local, global.. class members.. ANYTHING.. Than what are you using it for? PLEASE tell me!

And if nobody comes up with a good enough answer, we should punish the offenders by changing the library names and forcing them to write more descriptive names or their code will be broken.. (kinda joking here)

I am torn..
A: I think that it makes sense to have any standard libs should be in d.*, and c bindings should be in c.* and when we get to the point where we can bind another language's compiled crap, if ever, not that we need it, you could have cpp.* or something...

B: But you know, who cares what the names of the standard libs are. I admit, I cared at one point, but now I care about my own software. To tell you the truth, I don't use that much of the standard libs anyways, mostly just string stuff, which is all really well done anyways.

State your position...

A. Should we focus on writing new features, instead of changing existing code?

B. Is it important to focus on changing things before there is too much code it will break out there?

C. Do we all just rant cause we lack an outlet for this crap anywhere else.. (I mean, honestly, I can't talk to my fiance or my friends about this crap..)

Let the newsgroup know...

-- 
Thanks,
Trevor Parscal
www.trevorparscal.com
trevorparscal@hotmail.com

d is distance, discriminant, data.


"Trevor Parscal" <trevorparscal@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:d7jkm3$ofc$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>
>>>Walter's message from 17 Oct 2003:
>>>
>>>"What happened was that I'd prefer just 'd', but it wound up causing
>>>problems
>>>because 'd' was commonly used as a local variable name. 'D' is rarely
>>>used,
>
> Who names a variable d? That is the most non-descriptive variable name ever, and anyone who uses it should be slapped with a fine, payable to Walter's pay pal account.
>
> x, y.. z.. I can see.. Like in coordinate systems.. I suppose I can event see w and h if you are so lazy you cant write width and height.. Which btw drives me insane... If d is a common variable name, local, global.. class members.. ANYTHING.. Than what are you using it for? PLEASE tell me!
>
> And if nobody comes up with a good enough answer, we should punish the offenders by changing the library names and forcing them to write more descriptive names or their code will be broken.. (kinda joking here)
>
> I am torn..
> A: I think that it makes sense to have any standard libs should be in d.*,
> and c bindings should be in c.* and when we get to the point where we can
> bind another language's compiled crap, if ever, not that we need it, you
> could have cpp.* or something...
>
> B: But you know, who cares what the names of the standard libs are. I admit, I cared at one point, but now I care about my own software. To tell you the truth, I don't use that much of the standard libs anyways, mostly just string stuff, which is all really well done anyways.
>
> State your position...
>
> A. Should we focus on writing new features, instead of changing existing code?
>
> B. Is it important to focus on changing things before there is too much code it will break out there?
>
> C. Do we all just rant cause we lack an outlet for this crap anywhere else.. (I mean, honestly, I can't talk to my fiance or my friends about this crap..)
>
> Let the newsgroup know...
>
> -- 
> Thanks,
> Trevor Parscal
> www.trevorparscal.com
> trevorparscal@hotmail.com