DMD 1.036 and 2.020 releases

[Robert Fraser]

Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
>> Sean Kelly wrote:
>>
>>> Don wrote:
>>>> We also now have two modules called 'bitmanip', which is somewhat 
>>>> ironic
>>>> since we brainstormed for ages trying to come up with a better name for
>>>> it. Modules with duplicate names have caused linking problems in the
>>>> past -- not sure if that applies here.
>>> It applies if the modules from both Phobos and druntime end up in the
>>> same library on *nix.  Windows doesn't appear to have the same issue.
>>> But I'd love to hear suggestions for alternative names-- I'm not
>>> terribly good at naming modules :-p.
>>>
>>> Also, any I'd like to see how people feel about having three top-level
>>> packages in druntime vs. one-- an alternative I'd considered was to put
>>> everything under core.
>>>
>>>
>>> Sean
>>
>> Functionality exposed from the runtime should reside in core, std 
>> shouldn't
>> be used in druntime and any other packages (sys) is presumingly reserved
>> for what corresponds to tango.sys
>>
>> In any case, a hierarchy of the type
>>
>> common/
>>   core/
>>   sys/
>>   stdc/
>>
>> should be highly considered. This would allow a namespace for 
>> functionality
>> that is truly common, not only the runtime, but math and eventually other
>> functionality. In addition it is naive to believe that just because
>> druntime is meant to be a common runtime, that it will be the only 
>> runtime
>> in the long run.
> 
> A problem I see with the proliferation of top-level packages in the 
> standard library is that each of them makes homonym user-defined 
> packages inaccessible. Heck, I have a package called "common" today.
> 
> Andrei

I thought that's what this idea was trying to address ;-P ... Having 
"common" in the global namespace is only a single identifier; having 
"core", "sys", "stdc" and "std" is 4.