Phango - questions

[Don Clugston]

Bill Baxter wrote:
> Sean Kelly wrote:
>> Bill Baxter wrote:
> 
> Excellent flame-free technical post addressing the issues Sean.  Thanks.
> 
>> I suppose one could argue that following the Java approach in Tango 
>> results in unneeded redundancies, such as the DeviceConduit module 
>> containing a DeviceConduit class, but again, I would argue that 
>> choosing an arbitrary name to avoid these redundancies would reduce 
>> clarity.  As it is, I know that if I want to use a DeviceConduit in my 
>> app, I just have to import tango.io.DeviceConduit.  There is no need 
>> to remember that the class actually lives in tango.io.blah instead.
> 
> That does seem useful.  But is that true for every public class?  It may 
> be working in Tango, but generally D doesn't really lend itself to 
> Java's one-file==one-class.  (because D's only way to achieve 'friends' 
> is to put two classes in the same file).  Also in Tango I see you have 
> tango.math.Math which doesn't contain any class called "Math".

Quite true -- the fact that D allows free functions means that Java styles are 
not sufficient.
BTW - it used to be called tango.math.Core, the idea being that any library 
could have its basic functions in a file called 'Core.d', but unfortunately 
there were linker issues (can't have two obj files both called core.obj).