dcollections 1.0 and 2.0a beta released

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On Fri, 28 May 2010 06:10:49 -0400, Jacob Carlborg <doob at me.com> wrote:

> On 2010-05-27 12:32, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> On Wed, 26 May 2010 10:06:32 -0400, Bruno Medeiros
>> <brunodomedeiros+spam at com.gmail> wrote:
>>
>>> On 24/05/2010 16:45, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>>>> In the past I have built a C++ library that abstracted features of
>>>>> the OS. My goal was to make it possible to dynamically load a module
>>>>> that abstracted things like setting the IP address of a network
>>>>> interface. My modules used std::string instead of char * to lookup
>>>>> services to get objects that implement the interface. Big mistake. On
>>>>> a later version of the standard C++ runtime, the private
>>>>> implementation of std::string changed, so the dynamically loaded
>>>>> libraries crashed horribly. No change in string's interface, just the
>>>>> private stuff changed, but because it's a template, the code that
>>>>> uses it necessarily has to be aware of it. We ended up ditching the
>>>>> standard C++ library's version of string, and used STLPort so we
>>>>> could control the library.
>>>>>
>>>>> I envision this same sort of problem would be likely with D
>>>>> collection objects that were not used via interfaces.
>>>>
>>>> I see no problem retrofitting a no-interface container into a formal
>>>> interface if so needed.
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't understand this discussion: isn't the reason above pretty much
>>> a dead-on hard requirement for the collections to have interfaces?
>>> Something like, for example, an interface version of the range traits?
>>
>> Only if you wish to have binary compatibility with dynamic libs. Such a
>> thing isn't likely today since dynamic libs aren't very well supported
>> in D, and even phobos or dcollections isn't a dynamic lib.
>
> I've got my patch, for build Tango as a dynamic library on Mac, quite  
> recently included in trunk. And I've also have a patch for druntime and  
> Phobos in bugzilla just waiting to be included + one patch making it  
> easier creating dynamic libraries directly with DMD. I would say it's a  
> bad idea to still think that dynamic libraries aren't support, we have  
> to think forward and assume they will be supported.
>

I remember that, and I'm very encouraged by it.  That being said, the  
ultimate goal is to have dmd be able to build dynamic libraries easily.  D  
has had dynamic library "support" for years, but you have to do all kinds  
of manual stuff, and the standard library isn't dynamic.  Until the  
standard library is dynamic, and I can build a dynamic library with a  
-shared equivalent switch, dynamic libs are a laboratory feature, and not  
many projects will use it.

Just so you know, I think it's important to support binary compatibility  
in dcollections, and since std.container has not adopted dcollections, I'm  
going to keep interfaces.  I was just pointing out the position others may  
have WRT binary support.

-Steve