November 13, 2008AllLibraries page on Wiki4D
Is this page still being kept reasonably up to date? http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?AllLibraries In its current form, it's merely a list of libraries with brief descriptions. I think we could benefit from more detail, maybe in a structured form. One possibility is to make it into a table. The columns could be something like those currently used on the GuiLibraries page, though it should probably be kept as a straight alphabetical list with status as a column, rather than grouped by status as is the GUI libraries list at the moment. We should probably have one more column, to indicate which runtime library (Phobos, Tango or any other that may be conceived as time progresses) it depends on. We also ought to have somewhere where people can find out which libraries are compatible with D2. One possibility is to add a "D2 support" column to the table. Another is to have a separate "D2Libraries" page, which would list those libraries that are D2-compatible to any extent arranged in terms of the status of this compatibility. The former would be simpler; the latter would enable more detail to be gone into. Whichever route we take, we could use for statuses of the D2 compatibility the same statuses that are used for libraries in general, plus a few to the effect of: - Made exclusively for D2 - Not made to support D2, but works nonetheless - Has separate editions for D1 and D2 And with D2 not being stable yet, statements of D2 compatibility should also include some indication of which version(s) of (DM)D2 it's geared towards. Comments? Stewart. -- My e-mail address is valid but not my primary mailbox. Please keep replies on the 'group where everybody may benefit.
November 13, 2008Re: AllLibraries page on Wiki4D
Posted in reply to Stewart Gordon
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 22:14:09 +0000, Stewart Gordon wrote: > Is this page still being kept reasonably up to date? > http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?AllLibraries > > In its current form, it's merely a list of libraries with brief > descriptions. I think we could benefit from more detail, maybe in a > structured form. > [..] > Comments? > > Stewart. Sounds good to me. I would say feel free to make it better. Maybe you should start with a new page?