DMD 1.036 and 2.020 releases

[Lars Ivar Igesund]

Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

> 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.

This is not about proliferation, but having _one_ for common functionality.
common was just a suggestion that I like, it could be something else that
fits the purpose.

-- 
Lars Ivar Igesund
blog at http://larsivi.net
DSource, #d.tango & #D: larsivi
Dancing the Tango