RFC curl

Marco Leise Marco.Leise at gmx.de
Fri Nov 11 07:30:26 PST 2011

Am 10.11.2011, 17:52 Uhr, schrieb Brad Anderson <eco at gnuk.net>:

> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 5:14 AM, Jonas Drewsen <jdrewsen at nospam.com>  
> wrote:
>> On 10/11/11 08.32, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>>> On 2011-11-09 21:53, Jonas Drewsen wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> So after the last review of the etc.curl there were some requests for
>>>> making it simpler.
>>> <snip>
>>  BTW, why is this "etc.culr" and not "std.curl".
>> I think Andrei mentioned that he wanted it to go to std.curl. Another
>> option would be std.net.curl.
>> Anyone have an opinion about this?
>> /Jonas
> I think putting the high level API (which I really like the clean and
> simple design of, by the way) under something like std.net and the low
> level curl specific API in etc.curl might be nice.  I know what curl is  
> but
> looking for std.curl to download a file isn't obvious for anyone who  
> isn't
> aware of curl.  This also leaves the option of keeping the high level API
> and swapping out the curl backend with something else if that was ever
> needed or wanted.  That's not very likely to happen anytime soon but I
> think a good guideline might be to keep the phobos API focused on what,
> specifically, you want to do rather than what is doing what you want to  
> do.

Ok, let's do an experiment. I don't think I've seen community polls yet,  
so I created one on a random online poll site:


When everyone has cast their vote, there should be no useless discussion  
about the decision afterwards. :) ... I hope.
(I wont vote myself this time, so it doesn't look like I created a poll  
tailored to my opinion.)

More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list