Thread overview | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
May 09, 2006 Why std.stdio and not std.io ? | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Maybe it sounds as a stupid question but I still wonder why to mimic C include name for standard input/output. Regards, -- Tom; |
May 09, 2006 Re: Why std.stdio and not std.io ? | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Tom | Sorry for posting this here, it was meant to digitalmars.D In article <e3q9ir$2i7n$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Tom says... > >Maybe it sounds as a stupid question but I still wonder why to mimic C include name for standard input/output. > >Regards, > >-- >Tom; -- Tom; |
May 09, 2006 Re: Why std.stdio and not std.io ? | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Tom | "Tom" <Tom_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:e3q9ir$2i7n$1@digitaldaemon.com... > Maybe it sounds as a stupid question but I still wonder why to mimic C > include > name for standard input/output. This has been discussed before ;) Same goes for std.stdarg and std.stdint. It's probably from when the std modules didn't used to be in std, and were just "import stdio;", etc. In any case, the runtime library needs an overhaul before 1.0, there's no doubt about that.. |
May 09, 2006 Re: Why std.stdio and not std.io ? | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Jarrett Billingsley | Jarrett Billingsley wrote: > "Tom" <Tom_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:e3q9ir$2i7n$1@digitaldaemon.com... >> Maybe it sounds as a stupid question but I still wonder why to mimic C include name for standard input/output. > > This has been discussed before ;) Same goes for std.stdarg and std.stdint. AIUI they couldn't have named it std.int, because int is a keyword. But still, that doesn't mean there isn't a better name than stdint. > It's probably from when the std modules didn't used to be in std, and were just "import stdio;", etc. <snip> Was there any such time? Either way, std.stdio didn't exist back then. Actually, a possible explanation is that the two "std"s mean different things. The first one refers to the D standard library that is Phobos. The second refers to the standard input/output streams. So std.stdio is the D standard library module for accessing the standard I/O. Stewart. -- -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1 GCS/M d- s:-@ C++@ a->--- UB@ P+ L E@ W++@ N+++ o K-@ w++@ O? M V? PS- PE- Y? PGP- t- 5? X? R b DI? D G e++++ h-- r-- !y ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox. Please keep replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit. |
May 09, 2006 Re: Why std.stdio and not std.io ? | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Stewart Gordon | "Stewart Gordon" <smjg_1998@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:e3qe2d$2p8r$1@digitaldaemon.com... > Was there any such time? Either way, std.stdio didn't exist back then. Yep, pre-0.75 there was no std package. You'll notice in the changelog that 0.75 says "Changed to a new standard library package layout." My first experience with D was with 0.74, and I remember there not being a std package. > Actually, a possible explanation is that the two "std"s mean different things. > > The first one refers to the D standard library that is Phobos. > > The second refers to the standard input/output streams. > > So std.stdio is the D standard library module for accessing the standard I/O. I suppose that's a sane explanation. :) |
Copyright © 1999-2021 by the D Language Foundation