patched phobos and phobos_ext

[Brad Roberts]

On Wed, 3 Oct 2007, U.Baumanis wrote:

> On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 00:59:05 +0100, David Wilson wrote:
> 
> > On 02/10/2007, UB <ugis.baumanis at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> Is anybody interested in patched phobos and phobos_ext ( Tango's (?)
> >> containers, ..., etc.), if Walter and Tango guys has nothing against it?
> > 
> > I would be greatly interested in a distribution of Phobos that
> > includes critical fixes (threading, GC, etc.) with minimal functional
> > enhancements. Someone recently mentioned having a definitive patch
> > list for Phobos; I think that at least is a great idea.
> > 
> > What I really believe D needs is a Phobos distribution ala. Net-Phobos
> > like Netqmail is for Qmail. If you're not familiar with that situation
> > - the Qmail author produced an excellent body of code, but has a
> > policy of keeping it incredibly traditional, such as not using
> > "errno.h", which causes the build to break on many modern C libraries
> > that virtualize the actual "errno" symbol.
> > 
> > Net-Qmail contains the minimal fixes required to restore Qmail
> > functionality in a modern environment, and as such has become the de
> > facto Qmail distribution. People trust it because they know it barely
> > deviates from the official source code.
> > 
> > Specifically I believe it would be a grand mistake to extend or
> > functionally modify Phobos in any way - if you expect any community
> > uptake as opposed to Yet Another Runtime.
> > 
> > GDC also made its own modifications to Phobos. It would be interesting
> > to enumerate them and try to provide a unified distribution - if
> > possible you might expect excellent uptake.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Again I stress I believe it would be a grave mistake to extend Phobos.
> > There are enough "standard libraries" as it is. :)
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > 
> > 
> > David.
> 
> Thanks for your ideas and advices.
> Regarding phobos_ext, I agree - there is no need to mix two projects in
> one. (this idea just came out of previous posts about relatively easy
> extracting Tango's containers and using with Phobos)
> So yes, main target must be Phobos and then other libs will hopefully use
> it more.
> 
> And may be than Tango could be used as extension to Phobos.
> 
> ubau
> 

Let me put this thread to bed.

For each phobos bug that anyone cares to see fixed.  If you'll please make 
sure there's a bug filed in bugzilla and attach a fix to it with 
appropriate unit tests, I'll make sure it's folded into a dmd release.

This does _not_ include feature enhancements, just fixes to bugs.

Later,
Brad