core.stdcpp

[Daniel Murphy via Digitalmars-d-announce]

"eles"  wrote in message news:qrfucjdbmydvoqgeyybp at forum.dlang.org...

> While this might be acceptable, there is one more question: what use to 
> have the druntime separated from phobos, in this case?

Apart from the fact that it's too late to change of course.

> For me the druntime shall include only the runtime components that are 
> required for a program to function and on which one could build the whole 
> standard library. And that would be: handling the arguments, the GC, 
> basically, the D program execution model. And by D here I mean "the 
> language", not the "batteries included".

Druntime and phobos both had c/OS bindings at some point (core.stdc + std.c) 
but duplication is bad, so they were/are being moved into druntime.

In druntime you have the true, hidden runtime code (startup, profiler, 
coverage, unittesting, AAs), plus core language stuff (GC, Thread 
(+core.time)).

Phobos is supposed to be 100% optional, although it isn't, quite.  If you 
don't want to use phobos, for example if you are automatically porting a 
large C++ application, it's nice to simply ban phobos and have that clear 
distinction.