core.stdcpp

[deadalnix via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Wednesday, 27 August 2014 at 06:50:19 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 8/26/2014 5:32 PM, Mike wrote:
>> We currently have std.c and core.stdc.  I believe core.stdc 
>> should be
>> migrated to std.c, not the other way around.  And before we 
>> make the same
>> mistake with core.stdcpp, we should set a new precedent with 
>> std.cpp instead.
>
> The irony is D1 has std.c, and for D2 it was migrated to 
> core.stdc.
>
> Moving it back in an endless search for taxonomical perfection 
> just jerks the users around. We've done a lot of renaming in 
> the runtime library, and an awful lot of ink has been spilled 
> on the subject in these forums.
>

I don't think the problem here is about naming. Both std.c and 
core.stdc are good.

The problem is that you don't always want to bring libc and 
libstdc++ with you with every single project you write.

Thus it shouldn't be in the runtime (except the very bit you 
can't get rid of). It can still be core.stdc .