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.

IMO, the bottleneck to future large-scale progress is our august and brilliant leader, so maybe it's time to cut up the pie ...

Sure, it'll be shot down, or ignored, but at least I'll sleep straight in bed.

Derek the Downhearted Dastard

It was time for the DSLG a long time ago :-)

But, you have to get at least three people to co-operate first ... <G>

Okay, okay. That's not very helpful. Did you have some specific ideas (or
people) in mind Matthew?



"Matthew" <admin@stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> wrote in message news:cgh9fl$1ods$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> 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.
>
> IMO, the bottleneck to future large-scale progress is our august and
brilliant leader, so maybe it's time to cut up the
> pie ...
>
> Sure, it'll be shot down, or ignored, but at least I'll sleep straight in
bed.
>
> Derek the Downhearted Dastard
>
>

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.

I don't know what that means. I wrote a library (etc.bigint) without asking
anyone's permission (although the NG as a whole discussed the usage of the
namespace "etc" and the concept of "Deimos" and Walter gave approval). Then I
wrote another one (etc.unicode although it looks like this is going to be
replaced with some form of ICU). Others (etc.random and etc.crypto) are
in-progress.

Would would a Standard Library Group do? If it is designed to stop the public from writing libraries, reserving that right for a privileged few, then I wouldn't be in favor of it. But that's an "if".

Arcane Jill

It dates from way back, Jill. You'd have to scour the old forums, but I think it's been brought up three times now.

The general idea, as I recall, was to form a group that would act as a kind of "clearing house" for a number of tasks. Certainly not to stop the public writing. For example, the DSLG might try and shake some order into Phobos; would probably be the group responsible for moving things into etc.*; and would possibly review third party libs for the consumption of the rest of us.

The DSLG might also attempt to co-ordinate, group, and prioritize bugs; report fixes; act as a second-in-command. Generally try to offload some weight from Walter, and kick D maturation into a higher gear.

Or something like that.


"Arcane Jill" <Arcane_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:cghb4o$1p4o$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> 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.
>
> I don't know what that means. I wrote a library (etc.bigint) without
asking
> anyone's permission (although the NG as a whole discussed the usage of the namespace "etc" and the concept of "Deimos" and Walter gave approval).
Then I
> wrote another one (etc.unicode although it looks like this is going to be
> replaced with some form of ICU). Others (etc.random and etc.crypto) are
> in-progress.
>
> Would would a Standard Library Group do? If it is designed to stop the
public
> from writing libraries, reserving that right for a privileged few, then I wouldn't be in favor of it. But that's an "if".
>
> Arcane Jill
>
>

"Arcane Jill" <Arcane_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:cghb4o$1p4o$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> 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.
>
> I don't know what that means. I wrote a library (etc.bigint) without asking
> anyone's permission (although the NG as a whole discussed the usage of the
> namespace "etc" and the concept of "Deimos" and Walter gave approval). Then I
> wrote another one (etc.unicode although it looks like this is going to be
> replaced with some form of ICU). Others (etc.random and etc.crypto) are
> in-progress.

It's all in the newsgroup history. Sounds like from before your time, although we managed to refrain from being the cabal of a megalomaniacal few before you arrived, you'll be pleased to know.

> Would would a Standard Library Group do? If it is designed to stop the public from writing libraries, reserving that right for a privileged few, then I wouldn't be in favor of it. But that's an "if".

Yawn.

I retract my suggestion. This is the kind of peurile shit that's making this ng unreadable.

Arcane Jill 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.
> 
> 
> I don't know what that means. I wrote a library (etc.bigint) without asking
> anyone's permission (although the NG as a whole discussed the usage of the
> namespace "etc" and the concept of "Deimos" and Walter gave approval). Then I
> wrote another one (etc.unicode although it looks like this is going to be
> replaced with some form of ICU). Others (etc.random and etc.crypto) are
> in-progress. 
> 
> Would would a Standard Library Group do? If it is designed to stop the public
> from writing libraries, reserving that right for a privileged few, then I
> wouldn't be in favor of it. But that's an "if".
> 
> Arcane Jill
> 
> 

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'.

Lars Ivar Igesund

"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)

Matthew wrote:

> 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.
> 
> IMO, the bottleneck to future large-scale progress is our august and brilliant leader, so maybe it's time to cut up the pie ...
> 
> Sure, it'll be shot down, or ignored, but at least I'll sleep straight in bed.
> 
> Derek the Downhearted Dastard

I was thinking about that, too. But I'm not sure what needs attention. It
would make sense to list the stuff that the group would work on
Some possible items are:
- error/exception
- possible mmfile update
- large unicode effort (possible new toUTF impls)
- possible changes to streams (my updates should get in soon)
- phobos.html updating
- std.thread features (maybe - I'd like to look at some issues)
- program exit semantics (wait for threads, exit immediately...)

Then there are new features and modules to add. I haven't thought about those.

Can we do the above by modifying the code individually and sending Walter the new files (including doc changes)? It might make sense to have a newsgroup for phobos "development".

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

Ben Hinkle wrote:
> I was thinking about that, too. But I'm not sure what needs attention. It
> would make sense to list the stuff that the group would work on
> Some possible items are:
> - error/exception
> - possible mmfile update
> - large unicode effort (possible new toUTF impls)
> - possible changes to streams (my updates should get in soon)
> - phobos.html updating
> - std.thread features (maybe - I'd like to look at some issues)
> - program exit semantics (wait for threads, exit immediately...)
> 
> Then there are new features and modules to add. I haven't thought about
> those.
> 
> Can we do the above by modifying the code individually and sending Walter
> the new files (including doc changes)? It might make sense to have a
> newsgroup for phobos "development".

I agree phobos should have its own newsgroup. I have something to add to that phobos to-do list as well.

- get loader.d compiled into phobos on linux.

Is phobos development currently on hold until the compiler is 1.0? Just curious.