GNU version 0.18

[Brad Roberts]

On Tue, 28 Mar 2006, Dave wrote:

> In article <mailman.15.1143256971.5269.d.gnu at puremagic.com>, Brad Roberts
> says...
> >
> >platforms as porting work is done for them.  The phobos that comes with 
> >gdc isn't stock phobos, there's a number of changes, primarily constrained 
> >to the runtime support (exceptions, interfaces between the runtime and 
> >compiler, etc).
> >
> 
> Since you brought it up...
> 
> When are we going to be able to stop crapola like this?

Well, I didn't start the trend, as I wasn't around then. :)

> |version (GNU)
> |  import std.c.unix.unix;
> |else
> |  import std.c.linux.linux;
> 
> <g>
> 
> Can someone explain to me again the why behind this issue anyway? Are names
> really that important? I mean I think it should be std.c.posix.posix, but I'll
> settle for either one of the others. It's way to early to start forking the
> 'standard' runtime lib. for D <g>
> 
> Why linux? Marketing - because this will make the most sense to the most users.
> 
> Why unix?  Because this is more widely understood than linux as a 'type' of
> operating system.
> 
> Why posix? Because naming issues for API's like this are the reason POSIX was
> created in the first place. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posix
> 
> POSIX to me really makes the most sense, but it seems to have the least
> support.. Why?

I'd vote for 'std.c.posix'.  I don't see why there's two levels there, 
though I admit to not having searched for a justification.  The problem, 
as you pointed out, is one of recognition.  Though I'd just point to 
correctness over branding as a justification for using posix.  Given that 
D is all about presenting a unified and consistent interface and that's 
what posix is all about, it just seems right.

That said, I hate to think of yet another source incompatible change like 
this, but better now than before 1.0, which seems to be all the rage right 
now.

Later,
Brad