standard library vs standard interfaces

[Bill Baxter]

Kyle Furlong wrote:
> Lionello Lunesu wrote:
>> "Hasan Aljudy" <hasan.aljudy at gmail.com> wrote in message 
>> news:ep0kmq$1csj$1 at digitaldaemon.com...
>>
>>> According to my last char with them on their irc (about 3 weeks ago), 
>>> Tango doesn't conform to Phobos' interface; which is really 
>>> unfortunate IMO.
>>
>> I agree.. It makes a switch to Tango unnecessarily complicated.
>>
>> L.
>>
> 
> On the other hand, Tango was designed from the ground up to have a 
> coherent, logical interface. Perhaps it should be the standard that 
> *Phobos* has to conform to? :-)

I can understand tango wanting to claim legitimacy by taking over the 
'std' package namespace, but I think there are still some options that 
allow interop.

For one, Tango could choose a different top-level package that still 
sounds very legitimate, like d.* or lib.*.

Or Tango could make sure all it's std.* subpackages have different names 
from existing phobos ones.  Like std.math2 instead of std.math.  [Ok, 
that makes me barf even though I suggested it]

Or Tango could have an installer that allowed installing as both std.* 
and/or tango.* depending on whether you need to interop with phobos.

Or Tango could have an installer that moves *phobos* over to the 
namespace phobos.*.  At least that would allow an easy way to update old 
code by search and replace of "std." with "phobos."

--bb