DMD 1.036 and 2.020 releases

[Bill Baxter]

On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 9:19 AM, Sergey Gromov <snake.scaly at gmail.com> wrote:
> Tue, 21 Oct 2008 11:04:56 -0700,
> Sean Kelly wrote:
>> Sergey Gromov wrote:
>> > Tue, 21 Oct 2008 09:40:28 -0700,
>> > Sean Kelly wrote:
>> >> Don wrote:
>> >>> We also now have two modules called 'bitmanip', which is somewhat ironic
>> >>> since we brainstormed for ages trying to come up with a better name for
>> >>> it. Modules with duplicate names have caused linking problems in the
>> >>> past -- not sure if that applies here.
>> >> It applies if the modules from both Phobos and druntime end up in the
>> >> same library on *nix.  Windows doesn't appear to have the same issue.
>> >> But I'd love to hear suggestions for alternative names-- I'm not
>> >> terribly good at naming modules :-p.
>> >>
>> >> Also, any I'd like to see how people feel about having three top-level
>> >> packages in druntime vs. one-- an alternative I'd considered was to put
>> >> everything under core.
>> >
>> > I actually was expecting all the runtime stuff to be in core.* and was
>> > surprised to find std and sys there.
>>
>> I didn't even create core until just recently--before that, the modules
>> in core were global, much like object.  So my thoughts on the druntime
>> package layout are still evolving.  I do now think that having a single
>> top-level package would probably be best, but figured I'd solicit
>> opinions before changing anything.
>
> I think the <default> package should be left for the user.  This also
> gives you an opportunity to use package protection where appropriate.
>

I like core as the package name.  Or maybe even std.core if that's
technically possible.
The stuff in there is going to be kind of rare to import directly,
right?  So doesn't seem like the modules need to be top-level (or even
second level).

I also like the idea of renaming the whole project from druntime to
dcore.  Just sounds cooler. :-)

--bb