"J C Calvarese" <jcc7@cox.net> wrote in message news:cgj98d$2lms$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Regan Heath wrote:
> > On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 03:01:01 -0700, Walter <newshound@digitalmars.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Lars Ivar Igesund" <larsivar@igesund.net> wrote in message news:cghck7$1pgv$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> >>
> ...
>
> >>> My suggesgestion included a plan to create a separate project/group that would design/implement/harvest code for the standard library, making a good API the most important part. Then compiler vendors should either provide their own implementation of the API or just include the sample implementation of the group. Giving Walter at least some control was part of the plan, but leave all the real work to other people.
> >>>
> >>> Some of the controversy were over whether Walter should give away any control of his baby at this point, but I think he needs to to get a good library bundled with his compiler.
> >>>
> ...
> >>
> >> I don't think it's a disaster if the library development is decentralized and largely disorganized at this stage in D. I'd like anyone with what
>
> First, a comment for Walter:
>
> Disorganized, yes. Decentralized, no! There's only one person at the top of the period. All power and authority with Phobos is you!
>
> >> they
> >> believe is a good idea for a library module to go full speed ahead in
> >> developing it, regardless of what anyone else thinks about it.
>
> ...
> >
> >
> > So how does this sound to you Walter, and anyone else listening...
>
> I'm tired of waiting for Walter to respond to the issue of improving Phobos. I know he's busy fixing compiler bugs. It just seems that he's not even interested in accepting help.

That's my impression, too. I understand that he's very busy, and that from his perspective there are probably very good reasons for the situation, but I find it very demotivating. (To the degree that I've pretty much given up on Phobos. :< )

>
> >
> > What we can do right now, is take phobos and move things from it into Deimos refactoring as we go. We can also add new modules for people to try/test/evaluate.
> >
> > At some stage when Walter is ready to produce/polish a standard library for distribution with the D compiler he can take a long hard look at what we have produced in deimos and include what he feels relevant/required. (which if we've done our jobs right will be the whole thing)
> >
> > In the meantime we'll have something to build on, something that everyone can obtain and trial, something we can test the whole DSLG idea on.
> >
> > The other advantage to this approach is things added to deimos need not ever be removed, meaning, people can rely on them while developing, some things may move to phobos, but nothing ever needs to be removed.
>
> I agree big time. In fact, I just posted a similar concept (I called it "Deimos Rising") on the other end of this thread.
>
> >
> > We can also have 2 competing implementations allowing users to trial both. Something a standard library shouldn't have.
> >
> > I think this is a great idea, Deimos as it is has kinda stagnated, I think it's because there isn't any base to build on (no offence to all the contributors - myself included) we're kinda added un-related modules which while useful don't provide a base to build other modules off.
>
> If the people who are already posting updates here could be persuaded to put them in the Deimos project at dsource, I think we could get some momentum. On this newsgroup stuff just scrolls off my screen. Ack! It doesn't matter if I save the fun stuff to my hard drive (which I do), I just can't keep up with this stuff. And I really have no interest in re-compiling my personal version of Phobos once a week. Let's all get on the same team here. :)

How will the packages be handled? How will be be able to work with stuff that *must* go into std.* ??

Hell, then we'll start a new one called "Phoenix" or something.


"Sean Kelly" <sean@f4.ca> wrote in message news:cgja2l$2lvl$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> In article <opsdbappcv5a2sq9@digitalmars.com>, Regan Heath says...
> >
> >What we can do right now, is take phobos and move things from it into Deimos refactoring as we go. We can also add new modules for people to try/test/evaluate.
>
> Personally, I'd rather start from nothing and pull in pieces as needed.
Phobos
> contains some slightly redundant functionality as well as other stuff I'm
not
> convinced needs to be in Phobos at all.  Refactoring tends to avoid
fundamental
> changes, and until it's been kicked around a bit I would prefer leaving
the
> option of such changes open.
>
> >I think this is a great idea, Deimos as it is has kinda stagnated, I
think
> >it's because there isn't any base to build on (no offence to all the contributors - myself included) we're kinda added un-related modules
which
> >while useful don't provide a base to build other modules off.
>
> I don't really care what the forum is so long as it happens.  And I'd
prefer it
> happen in a readily accessible location as things could only benefit from
any
> attention Walter decides to give.  My only concern about using Demios is
that it
> would likely mean tossing what's currently there and starting fresh, which
may
> not be entirely fair to its current contributors.
>
>
> Sean
>
>

Well, if Kris is in, maybe I should consider it. (I shall reserve my right to flick off if it turns out into an argument-fest, rather than a hive of cohesive industry.)

What's the next step, anyone? (My D brain's so blurred that I really can't see a clear picture of this stuff anymore. I am yours, willing to be guided any which way ...)

Does this mean we will be debating such library things on dsource.org? Instructions, please.

I'm still going to work on DTL as an unallied library for the moment, ok? I don't expect that will trouble anyone any, just want to be clear.

For the record: if I get involved with this activity, it's a pragmatic thing with the sole purpose of helping to get a working (de facto) standard library in the shortest time practicable. It's not a political statement on my part. I've not fallen in with any particular viewpoint/faction, and I've not fallen out with any either.

Bob Dent, With a Bent for Independent Statement

"antiAlias" <fu@bar.com> wrote in message news:cgj9it$2lql$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Absolutely. Phobos shriveled up and shuffled off its mortal-coil rather a long time ago.
>
> DSLG will get nowhere as long as Walter pooh-poohs the idea, so make it Deimos Standard Library Group instead. If we can form a loosely knit "committee" to lay down some overall notion of function, form, and namespace guidelines, then so much the better. It's in everyone's interests to do this effectively, wisely, and in the spirit of kindridship.
>
> I'm tempted to suggest hoisting a few salvageable pieces from Phobos, and reorganize them into something resembling a cohesive front. At least that would provide some backward compatibility, once people had updated their imports to avoid the Phobos namespace-pollution.
>
> What I'm saying is, subvert Phobos altogether. It will remain buried even if it continues to ship with the compiler. It's really unfortunate that Walter does not support us fixing Phobos itself, but that has been his consistent choice for a long time now. Dump it, and let's get some progression for a change!
>
>
> "J C Calvarese" <jcc7@cox.net> wrote in message news:cgj7f1$2kvj$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > Sean Kelly wrote:
> > > In article <cgh9fl$1ods$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Matthew says...
> > >
> > >>What with the various whinges, incompletenesses and general moans and
> groans, coupled with the motivating case of the
> > >>continue Error/Exception saga, it occurs to me that it might be timely
> to suggest that a Standard Library Group be
> > >>mooted again.
> > >
> > >
> > > At the very least, such a group could organize submissions and work out interface consistency guidelines and such.  I'm all for it, even it it
> means
> > > that everything just ends up living in an etc library for now.  It would
> give us
> > > a head start on getting D ready for release and free Walter from dealing
> with
> > > library requests when he's already plenty busy with language issues.  My
> only
> > > concern is that this be handled amicably lest this forum turn into
> "Animal
> > > Farm."
> > >
> > >
> > > Sean
> >
> > Since Walter isn't keen on the idea, we might want to use the Deimos project at dsource for proposing items to add to Phobos. (In fact, some people are already doing this :)).
> >
> > http://www.dsource.org/projects/deimos/
> >
> > If someone complains about Phobos's std.stream being buggy, we could direct them to try Ben Hinkle's etc.stream from Deimos. When Matthew releases another version of std.mmfile, he can commit it to the SVN repository at dsource. Also, we could use the Deimos forum for Deimos-specific discussions (so that it wouldn't clutter up this
> newsgroup).
> >
> > It won't be a secret from Walter where cool stuff is. If he wants to fix up Phobos, he can come and get it from the Deimos project.
> >
> > I'm not saying it's a perfect plan, but it could be a big improvement from how we're doing it (or not doing it) right now.
> >
> > --
> > Justin (a/k/a jcc7)
> > http://jcc_7.tripod.com/d/
>
>

"J C Calvarese" <jcc7@cox.net> wrote in message news:cgj7f1$2kvj$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Sean Kelly wrote:
> > In article <cgh9fl$1ods$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Matthew says...
> >
> >>What with the various whinges, incompletenesses and general moans and groans, coupled with the motivating case of
the
> >>continue Error/Exception saga, it occurs to me that it might be timely to suggest that a Standard Library Group be mooted again.
> >
> >
> > At the very least, such a group could organize submissions and work out interface consistency guidelines and such.  I'm all for it, even it it means that everything just ends up living in an etc library for now.  It would give us a head start on getting D ready for release and free Walter from dealing with library requests when he's already plenty busy with language issues.  My only concern is that this be handled amicably lest this forum turn into "Animal Farm."
> >
> >
> > Sean
>
> Since Walter isn't keen on the idea, we might want to use the Deimos project at dsource for proposing items to add to Phobos. (In fact, some people are already doing this :)).
>
> http://www.dsource.org/projects/deimos/
>
> If someone complains about Phobos's std.stream being buggy, we could
> direct them to try Ben Hinkle's etc.stream from Deimos. When Matthew
> releases another version of std.mmfile, he can commit it to the SVN
> repository at dsource. Also, we could use the Deimos forum for
> Deimos-specific discussions (so that it wouldn't clutter up this newsgroup).
>
> It won't be a secret from Walter where cool stuff is. If he wants to fix up Phobos, he can come and get it from the Deimos project.
>
> I'm not saying it's a perfect plan, but it could be a big improvement from how we're doing it (or not doing it) right now.

Ok, sounds like a plan. Maybe it's not perfect, but it's a quantum leap from where we are now, I guess.

"Sean Kelly" <sean@f4.ca> wrote in message news:cgja2l$2lvl$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> In article <opsdbappcv5a2sq9@digitalmars.com>, Regan Heath says...
> >
> >What we can do right now, is take phobos and move things from it into Deimos refactoring as we go. We can also add new modules for people to try/test/evaluate.
>
> Personally, I'd rather start from nothing and pull in pieces as needed.  Phobos contains some slightly redundant functionality as well as other stuff I'm not convinced needs to be in Phobos at all.  Refactoring tends to avoid fundamental changes, and until it's been kicked around a bit I would prefer leaving the option of such changes open.

I agree. Start from scratch.

I propose that we *don't* emulate the std.* structure.

Let's start with
    d.
    deimos.

or such.

Then it can be moved over to std.* as and when appropriate.



> >I think this is a great idea, Deimos as it is has kinda stagnated, I think it's because there isn't any base to build on (no offence to all the contributors - myself included) we're kinda added un-related modules which while useful don't provide a base to build other modules off.
>
> I don't really care what the forum is so long as it happens.  And I'd prefer it happen in a readily accessible location as things could only benefit from any attention Walter decides to give.  My only concern about using Demios is that it would likely mean tossing what's currently there and starting fresh, which may not be entirely fair to its current contributors.

Then start with a new library. Call it something different.

"antiAlias" <fu@bar.com> wrote in message news:cgja9v$2m27$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Hell, then we'll start a new one called "Phoenix" or something.

I like that. I vote for Phoenix!


>
>
> "Sean Kelly" <sean@f4.ca> wrote in message news:cgja2l$2lvl$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > In article <opsdbappcv5a2sq9@digitalmars.com>, Regan Heath says...
> > >
> > >What we can do right now, is take phobos and move things from it into Deimos refactoring as we go. We can also add new modules for people to try/test/evaluate.
> >
> > Personally, I'd rather start from nothing and pull in pieces as needed.
> Phobos
> > contains some slightly redundant functionality as well as other stuff I'm
> not
> > convinced needs to be in Phobos at all.  Refactoring tends to avoid
> fundamental
> > changes, and until it's been kicked around a bit I would prefer leaving
> the
> > option of such changes open.
> >
> > >I think this is a great idea, Deimos as it is has kinda stagnated, I
> think
> > >it's because there isn't any base to build on (no offence to all the contributors - myself included) we're kinda added un-related modules
> which
> > >while useful don't provide a base to build other modules off.
> >
> > I don't really care what the forum is so long as it happens.  And I'd
> prefer it
> > happen in a readily accessible location as things could only benefit from
> any
> > attention Walter decides to give.  My only concern about using Demios is
> that it
> > would likely mean tossing what's currently there and starting fresh, which
> may
> > not be entirely fair to its current contributors.
> >
> >
> > Sean
> >
> >
>
>

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 10:03:41 +1000, Matthew <admin.hat@stlsoft.dot.org> wrote:
> "Regan Heath" <regan@netwin.co.nz> wrote in message news:opsdbappcv5a2sq9@digitalmars.com...
>> On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 03:01:01 -0700, Walter <newshound@digitalmars.com>
>> wrote:
>> > "Lars Ivar Igesund" <larsivar@igesund.net> wrote in message
>> > news:cghck7$1pgv$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>> >> The point is (as it was when I made a rather elaborate suggestion 8
>> >> months ago) that the standard library (read 'Phobos') is not anywhere
>> >> near a good library product.
>> >>
>> >> My suggesgestion included a plan to create a separate project/group 
>> that
>> >> would design/implement/harvest code for the standard library, making 
>> a
>> >> good API the most important part. Then compiler vendors should either
>> >> provide their own implementation of the API or just include the 
>> sample
>> >> implementation of the group. Giving Walter at least some control was
>> >> part of the plan, but leave all the real work to other people.
>> >>
>> >> Some of the controversy were over whether Walter should give away any
>> >> control of his baby at this point, but I think he needs to to get a 
>> good
>> >> library bundled with his compiler.
>> >>
>> >> With all the emergent issues in the language itself, I don't see the
>> >> need for DSLG as pressing as I did then, but I still vote 'YES; 
>> Create
>> >> DSLG'.
>> >
>> > I don't think it's a disaster if the library development is 
>> decentralized
>> > and largely disorganized at this stage in D. I'd like anyone with what
>> > they
>> > believe is a good idea for a library module to go full speed ahead in
>> > developing it, regardless of what anyone else thinks about it.
>> >
>> > The complete ones of those should go under the etc package name.
>> >
>> > Eventually, it will become clear which are the proper core ones, and
>> > those
>> > will move into std with likely some refactoring to fit into a common
>> > style.
>> > I don't think it's so easy to tell in advance, or to know what the 
>> right
>> > approaches are. And as surely as the sun rises, some of the best ideas
>> > will
>> > probably look like crackpot ones to me at first blush. I like to build
>> > cars,
>> > just like I like to build compilers, but that doesn't mean I'm so 
>> good at
>> > driving them. (for my latest project, see www.mitymopar.com)
>>
>> So how does this sound to you Walter, and anyone else listening...
>>
>> What we can do right now, is take phobos and move things from it into
>> Deimos refactoring as we go. We can also add new modules for people to
>> try/test/evaluate.
>>
>> At some stage when Walter is ready to produce/polish a standard library
>> for distribution with the D compiler he can take a long hard look at what
>> we have produced in deimos and include what he feels relevant/required.
>> (which if we've done our jobs right will be the whole thing)
>>
>> In the meantime we'll have something to build on, something that everyone
>> can obtain and trial, something we can test the whole DSLG idea on.
>>
>> The other advantage to this approach is things added to deimos need not
>> ever be removed, meaning, people can rely on them while developing, some
>> things may move to phobos, but nothing ever needs to be removed.
>>
>> We can also have 2 competing implementations allowing users to trial both.
>> Something a standard library shouldn't have.
>>
>> I think this is a great idea, Deimos as it is has kinda stagnated, I think
>> it's because there isn't any base to build on (no offence to all the
>> contributors - myself included) we're kinda added un-related modules which
>> while useful don't provide a base to build other modules off.
>
> Does your proposal require that we move package names?

Yes.

> If not, how do we manage that?

> If so, are you confident that that
> can actually be acheived? (For example, how do we modify the exception hierarchy?)

For the things we cannot move, we'll just have to use phobos. i.e. Object, Exception, GC? what others are untouchable?

> Sounds like a nice idea in principle, but I'm skeptical it can be achieved either way

It's only the base objects that we cannot touch, correct? As that's the case we either:
 - ask Walter to produce an alternate we can modify.
 - ask Walter to change the phobos ones.
 - soldier on anyway

As long as the base objects we want could be slipped into place later does it matter too much at this stage?

Regan

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

"Matthew" <admin.hat@stlsoft.dot.org> wrote...
> How will the packages be handled? How will be be able to work with stuff
that *must* go into std.* ??

Why must anything go into std.* ?  Just leave the gc, object, and exception there ... oh, you want to resolve the exception hierarchy, right?

"Matthew" <admin.hat@stlsoft.dot.org> wrote ...
> Well, if Kris is in, maybe I should consider it. (I shall reserve my right
to flick off if it turns out into an
> argument-fest, rather than a hive of cohesive industry.)

=====================
Like you, I'm in for as long as there's cohesive progress. The poncy
politics are best left to groups like "Avalon" :-)


> What's the next step, anyone? (My D brain's so blurred that I really can't
see a clear picture of this stuff anymore. I
> am yours, willing to be guided any which way ...)

=====================
I think we should move to dsource.org. Perhaps Brad can set something up for
us to communicate more effectively? For example, while voting is not always
appropriate, it does have its value ~ there's a voting mechanism over at
dsource. Antonio will hate the UI :-(

>
> Does this mean we will be debating such library things on dsource.org?
Instructions, please.

=====================
I'd say that's a good idea

>
> I'm still going to work on DTL as an unallied library for the moment, ok?
I don't expect that will trouble anyone any,
> just want to be clear.

=====================
As will I continue to work on Mango.


> For the record: if I get involved with this activity, it's a pragmatic
thing with the sole purpose of helping to get a
> working (de facto) standard library in the shortest time practicable. It's
not a political statement on my part. I've
> not fallen in with any particular viewpoint/faction, and I've not fallen
out with any either.

====================
Right; but it needs support. I believe your help will be of enormous
benefit.


>
> Bob Dent, With a Bent for Independent Statement
>
> "antiAlias" <fu@bar.com> wrote in message
news:cgj9it$2lql$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > Absolutely. Phobos shriveled up and shuffled off its mortal-coil rather
a
> > long time ago.
> >
> > DSLG will get nowhere as long as Walter pooh-poohs the idea, so make it Deimos Standard Library Group instead. If we can form a loosely knit "committee" to lay down some overall notion of function, form, and
namespace
> > guidelines, then so much the better. It's in everyone's interests to do
this
> > effectively, wisely, and in the spirit of kindridship.
> >
> > I'm tempted to suggest hoisting a few salvageable pieces from Phobos,
and
> > reorganize them into something resembling a cohesive front. At least
that
> > would provide some backward compatibility, once people had updated their imports to avoid the Phobos namespace-pollution.
> >
> > What I'm saying is, subvert Phobos altogether. It will remain buried
even if
> > it continues to ship with the compiler. It's really unfortunate that
Walter
> > does not support us fixing Phobos itself, but that has been his
consistent
> > choice for a long time now. Dump it, and let's get some progression for
a
> > change!
> >
> >
> > "J C Calvarese" <jcc7@cox.net> wrote in message news:cgj7f1$2kvj$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > > Sean Kelly wrote:
> > > > In article <cgh9fl$1ods$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Matthew says...
> > > >
> > > >>What with the various whinges, incompletenesses and general moans
and
> > groans, coupled with the motivating case of the
> > > >>continue Error/Exception saga, it occurs to me that it might be
timely
> > to suggest that a Standard Library Group be
> > > >>mooted again.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > At the very least, such a group could organize submissions and work
out
> > > > interface consistency guidelines and such.  I'm all for it, even it
it
> > means
> > > > that everything just ends up living in an etc library for now.  It
would
> > give us
> > > > a head start on getting D ready for release and free Walter from
dealing
> > with
> > > > library requests when he's already plenty busy with language issues.
My
> > only
> > > > concern is that this be handled amicably lest this forum turn into
> > "Animal
> > > > Farm."
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Sean
> > >
> > > Since Walter isn't keen on the idea, we might want to use the Deimos project at dsource for proposing items to add to Phobos. (In fact,
some
> > > people are already doing this :)).
> > >
> > > http://www.dsource.org/projects/deimos/
> > >
> > > If someone complains about Phobos's std.stream being buggy, we could direct them to try Ben Hinkle's etc.stream from Deimos. When Matthew releases another version of std.mmfile, he can commit it to the SVN repository at dsource. Also, we could use the Deimos forum for Deimos-specific discussions (so that it wouldn't clutter up this
> > newsgroup).
> > >
> > > It won't be a secret from Walter where cool stuff is. If he wants to
fix
> > > up Phobos, he can come and get it from the Deimos project.
> > >
> > > I'm not saying it's a perfect plan, but it could be a big improvement from how we're doing it (or not doing it) right now.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Justin (a/k/a jcc7)
> > > http://jcc_7.tripod.com/d/
> >
> >
>
>

> > For the record: if I get involved with this activity, it's a pragmatic
> thing with the sole purpose of helping to get a
> > working (de facto) standard library in the shortest time practicable. It's
> not a political statement on my part. I've
> > not fallen in with any particular viewpoint/faction, and I've not fallen
> out with any either.
>
> ====================
> Right; but it needs support. I believe your help will be of enormous
> benefit.

I think you *significantly* overestimate the level of my current/continuing influence.