Any chance to call Tango as Extended Standard Library

[Benji Smith]

Don wrote:
> Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
>> Don wrote:
>> druntime should certainly not become any bigger (in scope), as that 
>> would defeat the purpose of separating the runtime from userspace in 
>> the first place. The topic of common userspace functionality should be 
>> kept separate from the topic of druntime.
>>
> 
> I think you are confusing druntime (the project) with the D runtime. 
> druntime includes the gc as well the runtime, though they are seperate.
> I see no reason why including core modules in the druntime project would 
>  destroy the seperation.
> 
> Really, this is entirely a question of naming.
> 
> core.XXX seems to me to be the perfect namespace, certainly for the key 
> math modules which I'm most concerned about (std.math/(tango.math.Math, 
> tango.math.IEEE), and possibly also the low-level bigint routines. These 
> are all functionality which is closely tied to the compiler).

Totally agree.

Although the name 'druntime' implies it'll only contain the runtime, I 
think it ought to contain all the common functionality that virtually 
all applications and libraries will absolutely need: the runtime itself, 
gc, TypeInfo, math, containers (including ranges), algorithms, string 
processing, date/time, and IO.

Without those commonalities, any "compatibility" between Phobos and 
Tango will be purely illusory.

Whether the commonality is realized within druntime, or within some 
other low-level common library (like "dcore"), is immaterial to me. And 
actually, I don't really care whether Phobos and Tango have their own 
implementations. But there should be an API (interfaces? concepts? some 
new template-interface mechanism? doesn't matter.) that both Phobos and 
Tango implement, so that library consumers can seamlessly pass low-level 
objects between Phobos and Tango dependent libraries.

--benji