The path to unity

[Chris Nicholson-Sauls]

Sean Kelly wrote:
> == Quote from Bill Baxter (wbaxter at gmail.com)'s article
>> On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 1:54 AM, grauzone <none at example.net> wrote:
>>>> Hmmmmm.  Name for a common namespace...... How about.... "common".
>>> Every time you introduce a new standard namespace, a bunch of innocent
>>> existing D programs might become invalid.
>>>
>> I do in fact have a top level package called "common" where I put a
>> bunch of code that is common to my various projects.   But I would
>> happily rename it in a heartbeat if it meant greater unification
>> between Phobos and Tango.  'Tis a small price to pay.
> 
> druntime already has "core", is there truly a need for a second top-level
> namespace?

Agreed.  The mentioned packages (C libs + math) could even, if made part 
of druntime*, be under core.  Ie, 'core.stdc' and 'core.math'.

*I would now like to take a moment to propose that they both should in 
fact be part of druntime.  C compatibility is boasted as a feature of D, 
so the means to that end ought to be standardized (IMHO).  And math 
libraries are probably the most commonly used in the widest spectrum of 
programs.

My only concern is druntime turning into a "third stdlib."  Have to draw 
a line somewhere.

-- Chris Nicholson-Sauls