Proposal for a standard for D library naming

[Anders F Björklund]

Gregor Richards wrote:

>> So you might want to make the "so" name flexible... ?
> 
> I didn't mean to imply that these extensions were the only ones 
> possible, I used them because they were the ones I knew about.

No problem, just thought I'd add to the little list since
Mac OS X is identified by GDC as being a "Unix" platform...

>> So I would rather continue to name them as lib<name>.a/<name>.lib...
> 
> The entire idea behind my naming proposal is that it makes everything 
> 100% computer and human generatable while adding very little confusion. 
>  Having things named lib<name>.<extension> makes associating packages 
> and libraries difficult.

Think I missed the "auto-generated" part of the proposal... :-)

Currently I have the "wx" modules defined in a libwxd.a (or wxd.lib),
partly since wx is already the C++ library and wxc are the C wrappers.

Guess I could change that to libD.wx.a, but it looks somewhat strange.

> Because C/++ don't have such a nice, structured package style, they 
> don't have a naming convention for library files (there really couldn't 
> be one), but I think that's a terrible reason to not use a naming 
> convention for D.  It would building, even against libraries, 
> ridiculously easy.

Actually I don't find it that hard, and e.g. the difference in
which flags to use between DMD and GDC to be more "trouble"...

--anders