Is the phobos docs updated recently? I can't find
D.win32.registry anywhere (on the website). Also,
what works?
Can everything have D in front of it? What about d?
What about nothing? In short: What are our choices
when importing something from phobos?

Lars Ivar Igesund

The registry doco at http://synsoft.org/d/libraries/doc/index.html are mostly accurate, with a few new features not represented.

The registry.d file is fully stocked with Doxygen tags, but it has not been built in the new D.win32.registry guise (it was formerly synsoft.win32.registry).

Naturally, this should be done at some point, but I'm behind on some other things.

Matthew

"Lars Ivar Igesund" <larsivi@stud.ntnu.no> wrote in message news:bn5gi1$2f17$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Is the phobos docs updated recently? I can't find
> D.win32.registry anywhere (on the website). Also,
> what works?
> Can everything have D in front of it? What about d?
> What about nothing? In short: What are our choices
> when importing something from phobos?
>
> Lars Ivar Igesund
>
>

"Lars Ivar Igesund" <larsivi@stud.ntnu.no> wrote in message news:bn5gi1$2f17$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Is the phobos docs updated recently? I can't find
> D.win32.registry anywhere (on the website). Also,
> what works?

I'll go with Matthew's answer!

> Can everything have D in front of it? What about d?
> What about nothing? In short: What are our choices
> when importing something from phobos?

Eventually, the packages will look like:

D.???    modules that are available for all D implementations
D.win32.???   modules that only work on win32
D.linux.???    modules that only work on linux
C.???    modules that come from C

I've been thinking about this module naming stuff, and considering C++'s approach.

Clearly one of the reasons they chose std was because it was at least a bit unambiguous (three letters!)

I'm starting to wonder whether Helmut's notion of the standard library's having something longer than D (or d) makes sense.

Separately, I still don't see any difference between D and d, other than D is less consistent, which will be a permanent flaw on the language. Having people not be able to write d in a language called D doesn't seen a great hardship. It's not exactly difficult to do a global whole-word search and replace to change all d or D into d_ and D_ (or whatever).

I know I'm wandering a bit, but *please* let us have d.win32.etc.


btw, can you explain what a C module is? Is this a c library with function declarations only in D?


"Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:bn6bje$hk7$2@digitaldaemon.com...
>
> "Lars Ivar Igesund" <larsivi@stud.ntnu.no> wrote in message news:bn5gi1$2f17$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > Is the phobos docs updated recently? I can't find
> > D.win32.registry anywhere (on the website). Also,
> > what works?
>
> I'll go with Matthew's answer!
>
> > Can everything have D in front of it? What about d?
> > What about nothing? In short: What are our choices
> > when importing something from phobos?
>
> Eventually, the packages will look like:
>
> D.???    modules that are available for all D implementations
> D.win32.???   modules that only work on win32
> D.linux.???    modules that only work on linux
> C.???    modules that come from C
>
>

In article <bn6sef$19kb$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Matthew Wilson says...
>
>I've been thinking about this module naming stuff, and considering C++'s approach.
>
>Clearly one of the reasons they chose std was because it was at least a bit unambiguous (three letters!)

HEY!   Why can't we use std?  standard-d?

"Patrick Down" <Patrick_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:bn6skf$19si$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> In article <bn6sef$19kb$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Matthew Wilson says...
> >
> >I've been thinking about this module naming stuff, and considering C++'s approach.
> >
> >Clearly one of the reasons they chose std was because it was at least a
bit
> >unambiguous (three letters!)
>
> HEY!   Why can't we use std?  standard-d?

Well I guess no reason, other than Walter (and others, me included) want D. The main contention is that it seems that Walter's the only one (who's publicly expressed, anyway) the preference for D over d, despite the inconsistency. Do you have a preference in that regard?

Walter wrote:
> "Lars Ivar Igesund" <larsivi@stud.ntnu.no> wrote in message
> news:bn5gi1$2f17$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> 
>>Is the phobos docs updated recently? I can't find
>>D.win32.registry anywhere (on the website). Also,
>>what works?
> 
> 
> I'll go with Matthew's answer!
> 
> 
>>Can everything have D in front of it? What about d?
>>What about nothing? In short: What are our choices
>>when importing something from phobos?
> 
> 
> Eventually, the packages will look like:
> 
> D.???    modules that are available for all D implementations
> D.win32.???   modules that only work on win32
> D.linux.???    modules that only work on linux
> C.???    modules that come from C
> 
> 

I know this is revolutionary but how about...

phobos.???        modules that are available for all D implementations
phobos.win32.???  modules that only work on win32
phobos.linux.???  modules that only work on linux
phobos.c.???      modules that come from C


Justin

The argument against this was that phobos pertains to (Digital) Mars, and will seem anachronistic and vain when D gains broader implementation by other vendors.

"J C Calvarese" <jcc7@cox.net> wrote in message news:bn6v6d$1djh$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Walter wrote:
> > "Lars Ivar Igesund" <larsivi@stud.ntnu.no> wrote in message news:bn5gi1$2f17$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> >
> >>Is the phobos docs updated recently? I can't find
> >>D.win32.registry anywhere (on the website). Also,
> >>what works?
> >
> >
> > I'll go with Matthew's answer!
> >
> >
> >>Can everything have D in front of it? What about d?
> >>What about nothing? In short: What are our choices
> >>when importing something from phobos?
> >
> >
> > Eventually, the packages will look like:
> >
> > D.???    modules that are available for all D implementations
> > D.win32.???   modules that only work on win32
> > D.linux.???    modules that only work on linux
> > C.???    modules that come from C
> >
> >
>
> I know this is revolutionary but how about...
>
> phobos.???        modules that are available for all D implementations
> phobos.win32.???  modules that only work on win32
> phobos.linux.???  modules that only work on linux
> phobos.c.???      modules that come from C
>
>
> Justin
>

In article <bn6tgo$1b4d$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Matthew Wilson says...
>
>
>"Patrick Down" <Patrick_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:bn6skf$19si$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>> In article <bn6sef$19kb$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Matthew Wilson says...
>> >
>> >I've been thinking about this module naming stuff, and considering C++'s approach.
>> >
>> >Clearly one of the reasons they chose std was because it was at least a
>bit
>> >unambiguous (three letters!)
>>
>> HEY!   Why can't we use std?  standard-d?
>
>Well I guess no reason, other than Walter (and others, me included) want D. The main contention is that it seems that Walter's the only one (who's publicly expressed, anyway) the preference for D over d, despite the inconsistency. Do you have a preference in that regard?

If you held my arm against my back and forced me to make a decision I would say d.   But I really dislike using a one letter name.

Ok. Here's where I see the situation. We have several options

1. D
2. d
3. phobos
4. std
5. stdd
6. lang
7. some other multi-letter prefix

The primary bifurcation on opinion is whether it is d/D or a multi-letter. Personally I'm still in two minds about this, although I lean towards d/D

Secondary to that, therefore, is whether on for former case we go for d or for D. I lean towards d, and think that in either case it's not unreasonable to reserve the name of the language (in both cases).

For the case of multi-letter prefixes, phobos is ruled out because of its (Digital) Mars specificity, but the other contenders seem reasonable, albeit somewhat prosaic.

It would be useful if everyone could express their opinions on the main question of d/D vs multi-letter, *and* the secondary questions.

Is there a possibility that one of you web-enabled kinda guys could organise a vote? Helmut, what about a place on your wiki stuff?

Anyway, it may well be that Walter's just decided, and that's it, but until he says he is immovable I would like to explore. This is a very important issue that, once fixed, cannot be changed, so it's worth a little of all our consideration.

Cheers


-- 
Matthew Wilson

STLSoft moderator and C++ monomaniac       (http://www.stlsoft.org)
Contributing editor, C/C++ Users Journal
(www.synesis.com.au/articles.html#columns)

"If i'm curt with you it's because time is a factor. I think fast, I talk fast, and I need you guys to act fast" -- Mr Wolf

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---


"Patrick Down" <Patrick_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:bn73fk$1jfo$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> In article <bn6tgo$1b4d$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Matthew Wilson says...
> >
> >
> >"Patrick Down" <Patrick_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:bn6skf$19si$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> >> In article <bn6sef$19kb$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Matthew Wilson says...
> >> >
> >> >I've been thinking about this module naming stuff, and considering
C++'s
> >> >approach.
> >> >
> >> >Clearly one of the reasons they chose std was because it was at least
a
> >bit
> >> >unambiguous (three letters!)
> >>
> >> HEY!   Why can't we use std?  standard-d?
> >
> >Well I guess no reason, other than Walter (and others, me included) want
D.
> >The main contention is that it seems that Walter's the only one (who's publicly expressed, anyway) the preference for D over d, despite the inconsistency. Do you have a preference in that regard?
>
> If you held my arm against my back and forced me to make a decision I would say d.   But I really dislike using a one letter name.
>
>
>