dcollections 1.0 and 2.0a beta released

[Jacob Carlborg]

On 2010-05-28 14:12, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> 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.

Yes, exactly, I noticed there isn't an easy way to build dynamic 
libraries, among other things you have to know the path to the standard 
library when manually building.

> 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


-- 
/Jacob Carlborg