What's missing from Phobos for Orbit (package manager)

Jacob Carlborg doob at me.com
Tue Feb 12 08:08:27 PST 2013


On 2013-02-12 15:53, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

> Well, many of those could be implemented in Orbit, especially the
> trivial ones.
>
> The way it was worded, I thought you needed those to be in phobos or
> have an implementation provided before you could start the port.  It did
> sound a little strange ;)
>
> Some of them are not trivial, and I understand those (e.g. std.process
> and std.xml), but things like !empty I think would not need a special
> implementation in phobos for you to be able to port.

The original problem was Orbit is using third party libraries which is 
not acceptable if Orbit is to be included in the official distribution. 
This is according to Andrei and Jonathan.

The question then is: Which of the needed functionality can be moved to 
Phobos and which can not be?

I would like to avoid rewriting large parts of the code that is already 
working perfectly fine.

I also don't think it's good to include large part of library code in 
Orbit, i.e. a serialization library.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list