"Kris" <fu@bar.com> wrote in message news:d7lgs8$2or1$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>
> "Ben Hinkle" <ben.hinkle@gmail.com> wrote in message news:d7ldo3$2m81$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>>
>> "Kris" <fu@bar.com> wrote in message
> news:d7l6rl$2gv7$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>> > If you do this, Ben,
>>
>> quick note: I'm not doing anything. Walter would do the changing. I'm
>> just
>> talking :-)
>>
>> > then please add a "phobos." prefix to the entire
>> > package. Phobos currently pollutes the top-level import namespace ~
> rather
>> > poor form, and hardly politically correct.
>>
>> I'm not sure what you mean here by pollutes. How would phobos prefix be
> less
>> polluting than std or d or anything else?
>
>
> Phobos currently has two root namespaces: std and etc. You're suggesting
> adding another:
> <quote>
> The most obvious choice is to change "std" to "d" and move "std.c.foo" to
> "c.foo".
> </quote>

Oh ok - you're talking about the "c" and "d" instead of just "std".

> Do you think this would be the end of it? I don't.

ok. I do.

> What if I already had a
> root namespace called "d", or "c", or "io", or "math"?

Then those packages would conflict. Anyone out there have a "c" or "d" root packages? I'd be curious to know. It's like the "java" package in Java but for D.

> Such things have a
> propensity to collide with packages designed and built independently. I
> don't think it requires much imagination to see what a mess things could
> become. There's good reason why other libraries have a single, unique root
> name. Other than phobos, I don't know of another notable D library that is
> not singly rooted.

True - a single root would be nice but I don't give that as much weigh as the other factors. I'm more focused on the names, the probability of conflicts and the usability of the resolutions to the conflicts.

> Examine domain-names for some guidance on the subject?

ok. you mean like everything is ".com"? :-)
I guess I don't know what you mean.

>> > If, as you say, it's a simple mechanical upgrade, then should we not do
>> > this
>> > instead?:
>> >
>> > # import phobos.x.y;
>>
>> The upgrade is mechanical but the phobos prefix has a couple downsides long-term IMHO: 1) not as pretty as std or d, 2) longer to type. We could mechanically change the prefix to foo (as suggested jokingly earlier) but that doesn't mean we should.
>
>
> 1) Pretty?  :-D
>
> I'll assume you're serious for the moment, and ask if we should change the name of the library to something prettier also? How about "Tiffany", or "BabyDoll", or "KoochyKoochyKooKode" ?

uh, ok. I don't consider those as pretty (though I know you are kidding). You don't like pretty things? (or how about Dirty Pretty Things or whatever that movie was called). Substitute the phrase "aesthetically pleasing" for "pretty" if "pretty" doesn't do it for you. By "pretty" I also mean d.stdio and friends are more pretty than std.stdio and friends.

> 2) Takes longer to type.  Hmm. I can't imagine anyone wasting time on an
> empirical study or some such, but the time it takes to type an import
> statement must be rather low on the scale of time consumed by design,
> development, debugging, and maintenance of the code itself.  I'd like to
> quietly suggest that adding further robust development features to the
> language (such as read-only, and many others) are of a more substantial
> and
> realistic time-saver than skimming a few keystrokes at the top of a file.
> Are keystrokes wasted on documentation also?

Given the choice between typing and reading "d.foo" and "phobos.foo" my fingers and eyes prefer "d.foo". YMMV

> This reasoning seems kinda' weak, Ben. You're suggesting breaking backward
> compatability for all existing code, by changing all the module names
> within
> the "standard" library. Yet, at the same time, you see more benefit in
> saving a keystroke or two than fully isolating the library namespace? I'd
> like to understand this correctly, so please clarify?

Walter's post describing the std choice said he prefered "d" over std but backed off because of the variable conflict and greppability. I don't think he should have given up on his preferred choice so easily. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions so you can disagree and that's fine. If you consider the argument for "d" and "c" as weak then that ok with me. I happen to think the short term pain of running a search-replace is worth the long-term benefit.

> p.s. KoochKoochyKooKode would not make an ideal prefix ...

agreed.

"Kramer" <Kramer_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:d7lfl2$2nta$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> I've always thought the std generally made sense, except in cases like std.stdio.  Seems redundant.
>
> -Kramer

Agreed. std isn't so bad for std.string and some things like that. I happen to also think things like std.math and std.c.math would be better as d.math and c.math but definitely the double std modules are the least appealing.

"Ben Hinkle" <ben.hinkle@gmail.com> wrote ...
<snip>
> > Phobos currently has two root namespaces: std and etc. You're suggesting
> > adding another:
> > <quote>
> > The most obvious choice is to change "std" to "d" and move "std.c.foo"
to
> > "c.foo".
> > </quote>
>
> Oh ok - you're talking about the "c" and "d" instead of just "std".
>
> > Do you think this would be the end of it? I don't.
>
> ok. I do.

The "etc" package was apparently just ostracized from phobos. Something else is bound to come along, Ben. It always does, because we don't live in a static world.


> > What if I already had a
> > root namespace called "d", or "c", or "io", or "math"?
>
> Then those packages would conflict. Anyone out there have a "c" or "d"
root
> packages? I'd be curious to know. It's like the "java" package in Java but for D.

It would be rather short-sighted for someone to do that; just as it would be for phobos.


> > Such things have a
> > propensity to collide with packages designed and built independently. I
> > don't think it requires much imagination to see what a mess things could
> > become. There's good reason why other libraries have a single, unique
root
> > name. Other than phobos, I don't know of another notable D library that
is
> > not singly rooted.
>
> True - a single root would be nice but I don't give that as much weigh as the other factors. I'm more focused on the names, the probability of conflicts and the usability of the resolutions to the conflicts.

I see.  We'll agree to disagree, then <g>


> > 2) Takes longer to type.  Hmm. I can't imagine anyone wasting time on an empirical study or some such, but the time it takes to type an import statement must be rather low on the scale of time consumed by design, development, debugging, and maintenance of the code itself.  I'd like to quietly suggest that adding further robust development features to the language (such as read-only, and many others) are of a more substantial

> > and
> > realistic time-saver than skimming a few keystrokes at the top of a
file.
> > Are keystrokes wasted on documentation also?
>
> Given the choice between typing and reading "d.foo" and "phobos.foo" my fingers and eyes prefer "d.foo". YMMV

If one chooses to blindly ignore the benefits of an isolated namespace, then this topic boils down to nothing more than a personal choice based entirely upon aesthetics and habit. I mistakenly thought it was something just a wee bit more important than that?


> > This reasoning seems kinda' weak, Ben. You're suggesting breaking
backward
> > compatability for all existing code, by changing all the module names
> > within
> > the "standard" library. Yet, at the same time, you see more benefit in
> > saving a keystroke or two than fully isolating the library namespace?
I'd
> > like to understand this correctly, so please clarify?
>
> Walter's post describing the std choice said he prefered "d" over std but backed off because of the variable conflict and greppability. I don't
think
> he should have given up on his preferred choice so easily. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions so you can disagree and that's fine. If you consider the argument for "d" and "c" as weak then that ok with me. I
happen
> to think the short term pain of running a search-replace is worth the long-term benefit.

What you describe does not appear to acknowledge the possibility of libraries other than Phobos; so we'll just disagree. That's cool.


> > p.s. KoochKoochyKooKode would not make an ideal prefix ...
>
> agreed.

:)

In article <d7lk1j$2r6f$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Ben Hinkle says...
>
>"Kramer" <Kramer_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:d7lfl2$2nta$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>> I've always thought the std generally made sense, except in cases like std.stdio.  Seems redundant.
>>
>> -Kramer
>
>Agreed. std isn't so bad for std.string and some things like that. I happen to also think things like std.math and std.c.math would be better as d.math and c.math but definitely the double std modules are the least appealing.

Most of the double std modules could be easily fixed, by making a few module-specific changes...

std.stdio  -> std.io
std.stdint -> std.integer
std.stdarg -> std.vararg

But I'm repeating myself, so I'll leave it there.

jcc7

Are we still on this subject cause nothing has happened, or because the opposition to changing things feels the attack is not over?

Is D really done by committee? I thought we only had the power of suggestion. And to me, argument leads to only more fear of change (in Walter's eyes i suppose) as you don't want to anger the loyal programmers.. But also there is TechnoZeus (who I miss already) who, as someone already put it so very well, said "screw you guys, I'm going home" because the traditionalists, and those of us progressive minded people who can see eye to eye with them on this particular topic, didn't thing putting GUI code into phobos was a great idea...

Here it is. I love the D community, and I look forward to every day of programing and socializing over this newsgroup... But I have to ask myself, what is actually being done everyday. I mean, we should be talking about our projects, asking and answering questions, etc. Not arguing so very much.

So maybe Walter should have stuck with d instead of std. Lets just be content with whatever Walter decides for D, let him do what he WANTS to do, and not restrict him so much with out demands of traditionalism. Lets all work on a project of out own, or one on D source.

Anyone with me?

And yes, I like to type.. So sue me!

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

On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 20:38:37 -0700, Trevor Parscal wrote:

> Are we still on this subject cause nothing has happened,

Discussion itself is 'something happening'. Walter is never going to agree to a change that will have a massive impact on the existing user base unless there is some overwhelming reason to do so. So if we want this changed we have to provide Walter with reasons that are so compelling that to refuse the change would be stupid. I suspect that we have not achieved that yet.

> or because the opposition to changing things feels the attack is not over?

'attack'? What attack? By whom? Against whom? I do not believe that there is a group of people on this list that opposes 'change' because it is 'change'. There always seems to be well thought through reasons for opposition (even though I might not agree with them all the time).

> Is D really done by committee? I thought we only had the power of suggestion. And to me, argument leads to only more fear of change (in Walter's eyes i suppose) as you don't want to anger the loyal programmers..

Huh? Excuse me for being blunt here, but that is plainly silly. You have no evidence, and there is evidence to the contrary. Walter does not appear to be fearful of change, if that change both improves D and helps D coders. In the case of renaming the standard library packages, it is yet to be proven that it either improves D or helps D coders.

> But also there is TechnoZeus (who I miss already) who, as someone already put it so very well, said "screw you guys, I'm going home" because the traditionalists, and those of us progressive minded people who can see eye to eye with them on this particular topic, didn't thing putting GUI code into phobos was a great idea...

Firstly, he was requesting that GUI functionality be placed into the D language itself; he was not asking for this to be placed into phobos.

Secondly, I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to say in the above paragraph. It seems that you are saying that because "tradionalists" (who ever they might be, and if they exist at all) didn't agree with "progressive minded people", TechnoZeus couldn't handle the opposition anymore and left. Well if that was true, that was his decision and what has it got to do with the conduct of people of this list?

> Here it is. I love the D community, and I look forward to every day of programing and socializing over this newsgroup... But I have to ask myself, what is actually being done everyday. I mean, we should be talking about our projects, asking and answering questions, etc. Not arguing so very much.

Yes. If only D was stable, eh?

> So maybe Walter should have stuck with d instead of std. Lets just be content with whatever Walter decides for D, let him do what he WANTS to do, and not restrict him so much with out demands of traditionalism.

Huh? What "demands of traditionalism"? Where are you getting this from?

We all have to accept that any idea that we put forward should be examined by others and in doing so we may find out that it wasn't such a good idea after all. Just because someone oppose one's idea, does not make that idea good or bad; but we should listen anyway, so we can reexamine it ourselves and adjust accordingly. Sometimes we might improve our idea, sometimes we might discard it, and sometimes we just keep trying to prove its 'greatness'.

> Lets all work on a project of out own, or one on D source.
> 
> Anyone with me?

I am working on one D Source project and will be starting another soon.

> And yes, I like to type.. So sue me!

Okay, so how about ...

  import module standard_input_output from package standard_d_phobos;

Relax ...  I'm just kidding ;-)

-- 
Derek
Melbourne, Australia
2/06/2005 2:55:29 PM

Trevor Parscal wrote:
> Are we still on this subject cause nothing has happened, or because the opposition to changing things feels the attack is not over?
> 
> Is D really done by committee? I thought we only had the power of suggestion. And to me, argument leads to only more fear of change (in Walter's eyes i suppose) as you don't want to anger the loyal programmers.. But also there is TechnoZeus (who I miss already) who, as someone already put it so very well, said "screw you guys, I'm going home" because the traditionalists, and those of us progressive minded people who can see eye to eye with them on this particular topic, didn't thing putting GUI code into phobos was a great idea...
> 
> Here it is. I love the D community, and I look forward to every day of programing and socializing over this newsgroup... But I have to ask myself, what is actually being done everyday. I mean, we should be talking about our projects, asking and answering questions, etc. Not arguing so very much.
> 
> So maybe Walter should have stuck with d instead of std. Lets just be content with whatever Walter decides for D, let him do what he WANTS to do, and not restrict him so much with out demands of traditionalism. Lets all work on a project of out own, or one on D source.
> 
> Anyone with me?
> 
> And yes, I like to type.. So sue me!
> 

Oh, this sort of thing is nothing new. Just look over the last two years of postings, and you'll see.  If TechnoZeus indeed left, whatever...  He was opinionated, which is fine; but someone that opinionated shouldn't be discouraged if people don't listen to him or if they frankly disagree with his opinions.  It's give and take.  There have been several people that have left for the exact same reason as he, most quite knowledgable... and thin skinned.  Believe me, the ones that remain have their own battle scars to show if they were pushy about changes and some point.

It's the nature of the game on this newsgroup and no reason to disappear.  Thus, his leaving or staying isn't so critical to scheme of things as you might imagine. It's happened before; it'll happen again. Everyone's got to tough it out one way or another.  Those that do tend to have more influence in the long run.  Those that leave after only a couple months of flooding the newsgroup with ideas, won't get anywhere.

-JJR

In article <d7luvv$2d8$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Trevor Parscal says...
>
>Are we still on this subject cause nothing has happened, or because the opposition to changing things feels the attack is not over?

Sometimes, people just like to talk. I don't see a problem with that.

>Is D really done by committee?

Who said that it was. I think everyone involved in this discussion is quite aware that Walter is the one who actually decides. But we can still rustle up pro's and con's and offer suggestions and recommendation.

>I thought we only had the power of suggestion. And to me, argument leads to only more fear of change (in Walter's eyes i suppose) as you don't want to anger the loyal programmers.. But also there is TechnoZeus (who I miss already) who, as

If you compare the number of characters posted by TechnoZeus to the posts of his "opponents", I think you'd find that TZ posted 5 times more content. We allowed him to write what he wanted to write. Are we not allowed to disagree. Would you prefer that no one ever replied to his posts or only post if you're going to laud his ideas? I think people here generally disagreed with what he proposed (yes, there were some exceptions). If D became what he envisioned, I'd likely find another favorite language. And it was very hard to discuss anything with him because to always seemed 100% convinced that he was absolutely right and we were all utterly wrong.

>someone already put it so very well, said "screw you guys, I'm going home" because the traditionalists, and those of us progressive minded people who can see eye to eye with them on this particular topic, didn't thing putting GUI code into phobos was a great idea...

Actually, I wasn't even sure what he was proposing with the GUI concept, but after his "implicit import" scheme, I was skeptical immediately. Every time someone tried to restate his goal, he'd reply "No, that's not what I'm proposing at all. Why must you lie about my idea?" Perhaps he's the kind of genius idea that only someone with a 200+ IQ can comprehend. I don't know. If so, I guess I'm not smart enough to comment.

>Here it is. I love the D community, and I look forward to every day of programing and socializing over this newsgroup... But I have to ask myself, what is actually being done everyday. I mean, we should be talking about our projects, asking and answering questions, etc. Not arguing so very much.

If you don't like participating in the discussions, no one is making you participate. These never-ending topics appear from time to time. Often, I ignore them because I don't have anything meaningful (or new) to offer. (Sometimes, I join the conversation even though I don't have anything meaningful to offer.) A lot depends on my mood. I feel strongly about this topic, so I've made a few posts. I might not post anymore about it since I think I've written what I want to write. I don't really expect Walter to change "std" to "d" (which is fine with me). I'm still hopeful he might change std.stdio to std.io (something I first asked for months ago), but it won't be the end of the world if the status quo remains.

>So maybe Walter should have stuck with d instead of std. Lets just be content with whatever Walter decides for D, let him do what he WANTS to do, and not restrict him so much with out demands of traditionalism. Lets all work on a project of out own, or one on D source.

We know we can't demand anything of Walter (doesn't mean we won't try
sometimes). ;)

>Anyone with me?

Partially.

>And yes, I like to type.. So sue me!

You're not the only one who likes to type. Join the club.

jcc7

In article <o45b1as34wwq.1l53owq6jbrgj.dlg@40tude.net>, Derek Parnell says...
>
..

>> And yes, I like to type.. So sue me!
>
>Okay, so how about ...
>
>  import module standard_input_output from package standard_d_phobos;

LOL.

I think
"private import d_standard_library.standard_input_output;"
would be good enough.

jcc7

Kris wrote:

> Phobos currently has two root namespaces: std and etc. You're suggesting
> adding another:
> <quote>
> The most obvious choice is to change "std" to "d" and move "std.c.foo" to
> "c.foo".
> </quote>

I think that the Phobos (D standard library) namespace is "std",
and that "etc" is for Deimos (i.e. user contributions to Phobos)...

Here are the docs: http://www.digitalmars.com/d/phobos.html,
http://svn.dsource.org/projects/deimos/trunk/docs/intro.html

The only file left in a standard installation "etc" is "/c/zlib.d"
( which I have already flagged as a bug :-) ) and some C/C++ code.

Doesn't seem to be many etc. modules left on Dsource either, except
the Arcane Jill's old modules with the "unusable" license agreement ?

> Do you think this would be the end of it? I don't. What if I already had a
> root namespace called "d", or "c", or "io", or "math"? Such things have a
> propensity to collide with packages designed and built independently. I
> don't think it requires much imagination to see what a mess things could
> become. There's good reason why other libraries have a single, unique root
> name. Other than phobos, I don't know of another notable D library that is
> not singly rooted.

With a few notable exceptions (like: crc32.d, gcstats.d, etc/c/zlib.d),
then Phobos is also single-rooted - in the "std" namespace hierarchy ?

(I don't really consider the "internal" classes a part of Phobos,
and haven't checked the latest Ares package for any changes to "std")

I thought the whole topic here was renaming "std" to something else.
(and possibly renaming "std.c" to something outside the Phobos tree)

And I thought fixing Phobos was more important than renaming the dir ?
(or maybe I just didn't think "d" had enough merits to replace "std")

--anders