GNU version 0.18

[Sean Kelly]

Brad Roberts wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Mar 2006, Dave wrote:
>>
>> |version (GNU)
>> |  import std.c.unix.unix;
>> |else
>> |  import std.c.linux.linux;
>>
>> <g>
>>
>> Can someone explain to me again the why behind this issue anyway? Are names
>> really that important? I mean I think it should be std.c.posix.posix, but I'll
>> settle for either one of the others. It's way to early to start forking the
>> 'standard' runtime lib. for D <g>
>>
>> Why linux? Marketing - because this will make the most sense to the most users.
>>
>> Why unix?  Because this is more widely understood than linux as a 'type' of
>> operating system.
>>
>> Why posix? Because naming issues for API's like this are the reason POSIX was
>> created in the first place. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posix
>>
>> POSIX to me really makes the most sense, but it seems to have the least
>> support.. Why?
> 
> I'd vote for 'std.c.posix'.  I don't see why there's two levels there, 
> though I admit to not having searched for a justification.  The problem, 
> as you pointed out, is one of recognition.  Though I'd just point to 
> correctness over branding as a justification for using posix.  Given that 
> D is all about presenting a unified and consistent interface and that's 
> what posix is all about, it just seems right.

For what it's worth, Ares already uses 'std.c.posix' as the location for 
POSIX headers.


Sean