Any chance to call Tango as Extended Standard Library

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

Don wrote:
> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> IUnknown wrote:
>>> Regarding Phobos + Tango, the minimum I expect is things like
>>> containers, algorithm and common math stuff to be in one core module.
>>
>> This is already bound to be an issue because there is disagreement on 
>> how e.g. containers should look like (Java-style vs. STL-style). Which 
>> should be chosen? This naturally influences how algorithms are defined.
>>
>>
>> Andrei
> 
> 
> The analogy with KDE vs Gnome doesn't seem valid to me -- most libraries 
> will work regardless of which GUI library is chosen. Programmers can 
> still rely on the Posix and C standard libraries.

I agree.

> Can we work out the math stuff at least? There's no difference between 
> Phobos and Tango there. All we need is an agreement on common module 
> naming (eg, create core.math).

That would be great. I don't think that's a major issue anyway. If I 
were you, to be compatible with today's state of affairs, I'd simply put 
in the makefile the code necessary for switching the module prefixes.

> By the way, Andrei, this is exactly the kind of attitude which I was 
> ranting about. There are clear areas of duplicated code (fortunately 
> much of it is in druntime now), and even Tango's containers still seem 
> to be in a state of flux (the old container library is deprecated, and 
> very little of Tango is currently using containers).
> Everyone -- can we be productive instead of dismissive, please?

I think you're reading significantly more into what I wrote than I meant 
to put in.


Andrei