standard library vs standard interfaces

[Kirk McDonald]

Bill Baxter wrote:
> 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

Tango uses the tango.* namespace. For a while, Phobos was still 
available as phobos.*, but I believe it was removed because no one 
really used it (and it was never "officially" supported, anyway). With 
sufficient demand, I bet it could be added back in.

-- 
Kirk McDonald
Pyd: Wrapping Python with D
http://pyd.dsource.org