Any chance to call Tango as Extended Standard Library

[Daniel Keep]

Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> Don wrote:
>> [snip]
>>
>> It means that any code which uses a library based on both Tango and a
>> library based on Phobos will end up with two copies of all of the
>> functions, and they'll have different name mangling etc. You end up
>> with two incompatible Bigints, for example, even though they have
>> identical code inside.
> 
> Oh, I see. You want your library to be usable whether the end user
> prefers Phobos or Tango. But then why not stick it into a namespace of
> your choosing? Let's say your libraries are general enough to warrant
> putting them in a common core, but then anyone who defines some library
> don't have to go to the "core ombudsman" to add it to the common
> namespace. They'd just create unique namespaces of their own. No?
> 
> 
> Andrei

I think he means this: let's say you're writing app A.  A depends on
libraries B and C.  B depends on Phobos, and C depends on Tango.  Both B
and C happen to use BigInts or IO or anything else that isn't shared.

All of a sudden, you've now got to link in TWO standard libraries
instead of just one, each with potentially duplicated code.

>From personal experience, the alternative isn't much better: writing
code that switches between the two.

I have an XML library that can use either Phobos or Tango.  It does this
by implementing all the calls it needs in a shim library, essentially
using it's own standard library.

It gets really fun when you need to implement some call that's trivial
in one library, but really hard in the other.  I remember having to
build an IO layer so that both Phobos and Tango had the same semantics
regarding EOF or something...

Urgh.

  -- Daniel