DMD 1.036 and 2.020 releases

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
> 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.
>>
>>
>> Sean
> 
> Functionality exposed from the runtime should reside in core, std shouldn't
> be used in druntime and any other packages (sys) is presumingly reserved
> for what corresponds to tango.sys
> 
> In any case, a hierarchy of the type
> 
> common/
>   core/
>   sys/
>   stdc/
> 
> should be highly considered. This would allow a namespace for functionality
> that is truly common, not only the runtime, but math and eventually other
> functionality. In addition it is naive to believe that just because
> druntime is meant to be a common runtime, that it will be the only runtime
> in the long run.

A problem I see with the proliferation of top-level packages in the 
standard library is that each of them makes homonym user-defined 
packages inaccessible. Heck, I have a package called "common" today.

Andrei